You do realize that there are smart people out there who acknowledge that temperatures are going up, and want to debate:

1. If its part of Earth's normal cycle (albiet a bit faster) and we'll hit a real cold era soon enough.

2. If it even matters.

3. If it does matter, if it warrants the energy/money being thrown at it as compared to other issues.

Not everyone that questions the environmentalist movement are stubborn right-wing crazies.

It used to be having a brain
Was seen as a goal to attain.
Now, inverse eugenics
Produces "authentics."
(See: GOP V.P. campaign.)

Subby talks like a fag, and his shiat's all retarded.

Since radical climate change has resulted in mass extinctions on more than one occaision in Earth's history, do you think it would be prudent to explore this as thoroughly as possible rather than use a few scientists transgressions as an excuse to do nothing?

yeah but smart people scare republicans.

Yes, finally a story on Fark about climate gate. Of course, it took the "it's much ado about nothing" side, but what the heck. It's progress, right?

superdolfan1: Yes, finally a story on Fark about climate gate. Of course, it took the "it's much ado about nothing" side, but what the heck. It's progress, right?

seriously, the ice caps aren't receeding, the global mean temperature isn't rising and the moon is made of cheese. you stupid libs and your "science".

I wonder why...

GaryPDX: Until China, India and others go along, it's all for naught.

I don't agree... doing nothing is inexcusable regardless of the reasons.

/... and I know you're doing your part. I wish I was as good at it.

doublesecretprobation: superdolfan1: Yes, finally a story on Fark about climate gate. Of course, it took the "it's much ado about nothing" side, but what the heck. It's progress, right?

seriously, the ice caps aren't receeding, the global mean temperature isn't rising and the moon is made of cheese. you stupid libs and your "science".

I don't think you understood my comment. I'll try to make it closer to your level:

Nobody is arguing that there is climate change. They are arguing WHY it is happening.

The intentional modification, or even omission, of climate data, by so called "scientists" is something that needs to be investigated. More and more eggs are being put into the "man is responsible for global warming" basket, which makes it a very lucrative basket.

Ask yourself for just a minute: What if that's not the reason for the climate change? What if man is NOT responsible? The billions of dollars being spent on preventing man from further affecting the environment (for argument's sake, let's say he's not responsible) could be spent on preparing for what may be a natural occurrence.

My point is that we are taking these "scientists" at face value because we believe the rhetoric they are publishing in their "peer-reviewed" papers. They have proven to be liars. Now what? Continue down the same course of deceit?

What if they're wrong? What if man is not responsible?

The media, including this story, is unwilling to look at other sources for fear that they may find something and all of their reporting will prove to have been incorrect.

Falsification of data, even some data, makes all subsequent data worthless.

I think Americans are actually quite smart. I mean, sure, we fall behind in nearly every index of math, literacy and science. But we are world-class experts on sit-com theme songs, soap opera actors, reality TV stars and where John Mayer puts his penis. This is a body of knowledge that goes unrecognized by all those pointy-heads with their slide rules and cyclotrons.

Skail: all science is wrong and we should just pray to a sky-wizard for help

benlonghair: And don't go and try to change what the earth is doing

... and yet, that is the debate. Are we (humans) changing what the Earth is doing?

superdolfan1: My point is that we are taking these "scientists" at face value because we believe the rhetoric they are publishing in their "peer-reviewed" papers. They have proven to be liars.

One incident makes ALL scientists liars?

So I guess Jimmy Swaggert made all preachers fornicators and liars then?

OlafTheBent: So I guess Jimmy Swaggert made all preachers fornicators and liars then?

No, that's just mostly the nature of anyone willing to become a hellfire-and-damnation preacher.

OlafTheBent: benlonghair: And don't go and try to change what the earth is doing

... and yet, that is the debate. Are we (humans) changing what the Earth is doing?

But the premise is bullshiat. We can and do go changing the earth, and there isn't a serious moral authority that claims otherwise.

Elephant herds dig out holes in dry seasons and return to them as new watering holes later in the year. Even they go about manipulating natural terrain and resources for survival.

Even if climate change isn't anthropogenic, you'd think we'd like to prepare for it as efficiently as possible, yes? Some of you farkers may want to wither and die when things change, but I guarantee there are an awful lot of us that have a good bit of survival instinct left.

superdolfan1: What if that's not the reason for the climate change? What if man is NOT responsible?

yeah there's a lot of if's, the difference is one side wants to err on the side of caution, the other wants to throw it to the wind.

OlafTheBent: benlonghair: And don't go and try to change what the earth is doing

... and yet, that is the debate. Are we (humans) changing what the Earth is doing?

superdolfan1: My point is that we are taking these "scientists" at face value because we believe the rhetoric they are publishing in their "peer-reviewed" papers. They have proven to be liars.

One incident makes ALL scientists liars?

So I guess Jimmy Swaggert made all preachers fornicators and liars then?

No, only those preachers who go on TV to preach against fornication. You can add Ted Haggard to your list also.

I never indicated in my post ALL scientists, just those who fail to look at all causes for global warming and are relying on modified/omitted data for their research.

My point is that we are taking these "scientists" at face value because we believe the rhetoric they are publishing in their "peer-reviewed" papers. They have proven to be liars. Now what? Continue down the same course of deceit?

This is the point at which your entire argument reveals itself to be ridiculous.

You have taken the specific example of some bad scientists trying to push an agenda and generalised it to all scientists working on climate change.

The irony of course is that you probably don't apply the same "all subsequent data is worthless" line to the scientists on the other side of the debate who were being paid to produce a specific opinion by energy producers.

eddyatwork: Willful ignorance pisses me off. It's one thing to say "I don't know" about something, but there are people who take pride in not knowing things. See modern conservatism for an example of this.

This. The whole "anyone with actual education or experience is just some big-shot elitist out to rip you off" attitude is tiring. Forrest Gump was just a movie, y'know?

The article is right on to laugh at people who assume that scientists are somehow all in cahoots over money while completely ignoring industry and the money on that side.

It reminds me of the same stupidity (or blind spot, I suppose) that shows up in various alternative medicine woo threads - supposedly allopathic medicine is a big racket by "Big Pharma," reputable scientists and hospitals won't buy into homeopathy and the like purely because "there's no profits in it," but there's NO mention whatever of all the money being made on the various alt-med cures, the supplements, the traditional healing seminars, and all of it.

Add to that, they seem not to realize that the BEST way to make a real name for yourself in science and get prizes and fame would be to TRULY disprove the consensus. If you really can PROVE whatever "skeptic" not-going-with-the-mainstream theory, really prove it, you'll be famous beyond your wildest dreams, so hell yes there's incentives in that direction.

palladiate: Even if climate change isn't anthropogenic, you'd think we'd like to prepare for it as efficiently as possible, yes? Some of you farkers may want to wither and die when things change, but I guarantee there are an awful lot of us that have a good bit of survival instinct left.

I just added you to my survival group. :-)

doublesecretprobation: yeah there's a lot of if's, the difference is one side wants to err on the side of caution, the other wants to throw it to the wind.

No, the difference is if one side is wrong, it'll cost a lot of cash, if the other side is wrong, most of us will die.

Personally, I'd gladly sacrifice short term profit, for long term survival... anyone who does otherwise, is a fool IMO.

Tigger: My point is that we are taking these "scientists" at face value because we believe the rhetoric they are publishing in their "peer-reviewed" papers. They have proven to be liars. Now what? Continue down the same course of deceit?

This is the point at which your entire argument reveals itself to be ridiculous.

You have taken the specific example of some bad scientists trying to push an agenda and generalised it to all scientists working on climate change.

The irony of course is that you probably don't apply the same "all subsequent data is worthless" line to the scientists on the other side of the debate who were being paid to produce a specific opinion by energy producers.

Irony? Your last paragraph, which makes your entire argument to be beyond ridiculous.

If one side (since we're choosing sides now) is being "paid to produce specific opinion by energy produces", then the other side is being paid to produce specific opinion by companies who make their profit by being "green".

Works both ways, right?

Now, try again, this time with some substance.

palladiate: Even if climate change isn't anthropogenic, you'd think we'd like to prepare for it as efficiently as possible, yes? Some of you farkers may want to wither and die when things change, but I guarantee there are an awful lot of us that have a good bit of survival instinct left.

There's a lot of "well *I* didn't poke the hole in the boat so dammit *I* am not going to do any bailing" in all the climate discussions.

As for the emails, there's a lot less there than the cherry picking blog reporting would have you believe.

abb3w: Skail: all science is wrong and we should just pray to a sky-wizard for help

that ther taybuhl is confuzzing whut wit the big werds an' thu cuhlers. all i knows is "WORD OF GOD" is at thu top 'cuz it's the true.

Theaetetus: superdolfan1: Falsification of data, even some data, makes all subsequent data worthless.

No, it doesn't. It makes it questionable. Say a guy passes a bad check. Are all of his other checks now worthless? No. They could be, and you've got good reason to check, but they absolutely could have value.

Would you take a check from him knowing that he's written bad checks in the past?

True. But just being smart doesn't make you immune from bias, or prejudice, or groupthink, or logical fallacies, or the the ego boost that comes along with being constantly told you're superior. Quite the opposite, even in science. Ironic that the authors bring up the Galapagos Islands and the problems of isolated groups; I'd argue that it is precisely that isolation that breeds the kind of intellectual arrogance that responds to substantive criticism from outside the field with ad hominem questions about the source and level of the degrees on the critic's office walls, even while the seemingly smart people work furiously behind the scenes to make the data fit their theory. (It's basically the same way you get a square peg to fit in a round hole: cut corners.)

Never, ever, doubt the ability of very smart people to fall for very stupid or even dangerous ideas because they believed otherwise.

/I wrote a longer rant, but my web browser eated it

aden_nak: I might be more inclined to listen to the "other" side of the argument if it wasn't completely funded by the industries most likely to see a decrease in profits due to global warming.

Who's funding "your" side? Have you ever wondered about that? And what they stand to lose by having data that shows global warming is not man made?

If one side (since we're choosing sides now) is being "paid to produce specific opinion by energy produces", then the other side is being paid to produce specific opinion by companies who make their profit by being "green".

I'm not choosing sides in the green debate.

I'm choosing sides in the "I have falsely generalised a piece of information in order to support my point of view because I get a kick out of feeling like I am the smart person who bucks consensus as an individualist free thinker" debate.

You made a false generalisation. I wasn't the first to point it out. I merely note the irony of you claiming that "all subsequent data is worthless" when I'd bet my last dollar you haven't done the same with scientists who were found to be contracted by energy companies.

Mobkey: I'm going to go ahead and say we're much more important than the earth.

Ummmm... no. Take this extreme example. If it were a choice between your mom and the earth, which would you save? The earth doesn't need us (humans) to survive. Can't really say the same thing about humans.

The earth, as a place to sustain life, will tolerate and survive a hell of a lot more changes than humans will. If you push the mean temperature of the planet up by 10* C, a lot of the organic life will die off really quickly as food sources disappear. But the earth itself will still be here and recover.

Tigger: If one side (since we're choosing sides now) is being "paid to produce specific opinion by energy produces", then the other side is being paid to produce specific opinion by companies who make their profit by being "green".

I'm not choosing sides in the green debate.

I'm choosing sides in the "I have falsely generalised a piece of information in order to support my point of view because I get a kick out of feeling like I am the smart person who bucks consensus as an individualist free thinker" debate.

You made a false generalisation. I wasn't the first to point it out. I merely note the irony of you claiming that "all subsequent data is worthless" when I'd bet my last dollar you haven't done the same with scientists who were found to be contracted by energy companies.

And I'd bet my last dollar that you haven't down this with the scientists who were found to be contracted by the "green" industry.

You see, it does work both ways. The "green" industry is fast becoming as powerful as the energy industry.

And I'd bet my last dollar that you haven't down this with the scientists who were found to be contracted by the "green" industry.

You see, it does work both ways. The "green" industry is fast becoming as powerful as the energy industry.


Of course I would. But then your projecting your own intellectual weakness and lack of character on to me.

I am complete and total in my rejection of the scientists found to be dishonest. The difference is that you have extended that rejection to all scientists, as demonstrated by your initial post.

superdolfan1: Would you take a check from him knowing that he's written bad checks in the past?

When the issue is checks from a huge organization, and only one regional office had the bad check, and we're talking checks from another regional office?

Sure.

But I might check carefully, of course.

superdolfan1: Who's funding "your" side? Have you ever wondered about that? And what they stand to lose by having data that shows global warming is not man made?

"Follow the money" is always a good thing to do, no matter what is being done. And it should be part of any critical review of anything you're reading/researching/etc. research is NOT done in a vacuum.

Yes, there is a HUGE market for "green" things. And there is as much to lose on the opposite side. Both sides have bias and have lied. Doesn't mean everyone on both sides are wrong or should be ignored.

One really good thing about science is that things will be changed and modified as new evidence is found and studied. Eventually we'll get to an understanding as to what is going on.

benlonghair: Added that for you.

Depends on how much we fark it up. The option to "nuke it from orbit" is still on the table.

Everybody likes to think they're smart. Everybody likes to think they're special, unique, independent, or somehow "apart from the mold." This is rarely the case. Whenever I hear someone ranting about how "all people are sheep," the unwritten subtext appears to be "...except for me, of course. I'm special."

We're all conformists and nonconformists. We're all smart in some ways and stupid in others. Even me. Even you. The trick is figuring out what you don't know, and adjusting yourself accordingly. Learn it, avoid it, or find someone who can do it for you.