Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   Another global warming scam? SAY IT AIN'T SO 111ONE11ELEVENTY111   (washingtonexaminer.com ) divider line 369
    More: Obvious, Danish CO2 Quotas Register, double click, Copenhagen Post Online, Chicago Police, quotas, Jim Bunning, New York Fed, CRU  
•       •       •

3457 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Dec 2009 at 1:22 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



369 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-12-05 02:35:27 PM  

whatshisname: nicksteel: I like this quote from John Christy, U of Alabama, Huntsville. He is a well respected and highly qualified climate researcher. He was obviously addressing the boys at the CRU, but I think it applies to the warmers here as well.

These people act in concert to diminish, reject, and otherwise denigrate findings with which they do not agree - and they are able to do so because of their "establishment" positions. This is the preservation of "group think" at its most serious level.... The group represented by the bulk of these emails does indeed have a message to defend. Those of us who see problems with that message are aware of how the data are manufactured and interpreted to support that message - and worse, how these establishment scientists act as gatekeepers for the "consensus" reports to suppress alternative findings.

Which is ironic, because the current American backlash against Global Warming has nothing to do with the quality of the science or the validity of the data. It's simply part of the political noise against anything not associated with the GOP. If there's any groupthink going on here, it's among the deniers.


WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you. If you would actually think about these posts instead of your knee jerk reactions, you might learn something. Oh hell, who I am kidding.
 
2009-12-05 02:35:36 PM  

nicksteel: Mrstupid7: Il Douchey: Serious George: ...at which point the hacker selectively released a few of the one that seemed most damning for the scrutiny of an otherwise credulous public.

Yes, Serious, it was a real cherry pick (new window)

/But seriously, Serious. What gave you that idea anyway? It's almost like you have a pre-concieved bias that you want desparately to hold on to

Alright, show me where the actual real life data was faked.

considering that they tossed the raw data, it is impossible to prove or disprove that. There are statements in the emails that indicate they did so.


Like what?
 
2009-12-05 02:36:05 PM  
You know, it's a pretty odd conspiracy that over the course of thousands of emails gets mentioned perhaps three times if we really, really, really squint sideways and start from the assumption that something evil is taking place.

I mean, the biggest "smoking gun" email of them all--the one that everyone quotes over and over and over again--is the 'trick' one. One figure in one scientific paper used a certain "trick" to "hide the decline."

Okeydoke, sounds bad. Now...anyone actually looked at the paper? Did it make clear how the figure was formed or not? Would other scientists looking at the paper understand how that figure was achieved? If so, there's no "trick" at all. There's not even the teensiest, tiniest hint of a scandal. I kinda have to assume that the paper does, in fact, make the way the figure is arrived at clear, because the AGW-deniers would clearly be on much stronger ground if they could say "look! see! a fraudulent paper!" than simply saying "hey, he used the word trick!!! OMFG he's a monster!!!!"

But let's assume, for the moment, that the paper does, in fact, obscure the way the data have been compiled. Let's assume that there is one. single. solitary. paper. with one. single. solitary. misleading. figure in it making the case for AGW. From a decade ago.

Well pardon me if I'm not overly excited about that. I'm pretty sure you can find erroneous papers in every field of science imaginable. One poorly constructed paper doesn't demolish decades of work by thousands of independent scientists, does it?
 
2009-12-05 02:36:30 PM  

nicksteel: Mrstupid7: Il Douchey: Serious George: ...at which point the hacker selectively released a few of the one that seemed most damning for the scrutiny of an otherwise credulous public.

Yes, Serious, it was a real cherry pick (new window)

/But seriously, Serious. What gave you that idea anyway? It's almost like you have a pre-concieved bias that you want desparately to hold on to

Alright, show me where the actual real life data was faked.

considering that they tossed the raw data, it is impossible to prove or disprove that. There are statements in the emails that indicate they did so.


Keep in mind, Mrstupid7, that nicksteel has dodged an offer of $100 for a charity of his choice if he can only sit down and conclusively demonstrate a fraud occured, and puts on his ignore list anybody who reminds him of the uncomfortable fact that he can't put his money where his mouth is.

Remind him of that, and ask him if he's so sure of his position why that is.
 
2009-12-05 02:36:59 PM  
Strike three, Science, you're out.

/prepares the leeches
 
2009-12-05 02:38:00 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: nicksteel: Mrstupid7: Il Douchey: Serious George: ...at which point the hacker selectively released a few of the one that seemed most damning for the scrutiny of an otherwise credulous public.

Yes, Serious, it was a real cherry pick (new window)

/But seriously, Serious. What gave you that idea anyway? It's almost like you have a pre-concieved bias that you want desparately to hold on to

Alright, show me where the actual real life data was faked.

considering that they tossed the raw data, it is impossible to prove or disprove that. There are statements in the emails that indicate they did so.

Keep in mind, Mrstupid7, that nicksteel has dodged an offer of $100 for a charity of his choice if he can only sit down and conclusively demonstrate a fraud occured, and puts on his ignore list anybody who reminds him of the uncomfortable fact that he can't put his money where his mouth is.

Remind him of that, and ask him if he's so sure of his position why that is.


Hmm... interesting.
 
2009-12-05 02:39:09 PM  

Thray: Strike three, Science, you're out.

/prepares the leeches


I know my computer is going in the garbage and I'm going to go live in a tent mud hut in the woods and eat berries for the rest of my life. Damn science just keeps letting us down.
 
2009-12-05 02:41:37 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Remind him of that, and ask him if he's so sure of his position why that is.


He ignored me for reminding him of the fact the he failed to grasp basic statistics when it comes to scientific polling. For a supposed skeptic he seems awfully close minded.
 
2009-12-05 02:41:41 PM  

Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.


It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".
 
2009-12-05 02:42:23 PM  
Mrstupid7: Alright, show me where the actual real life data was faked.

Sadly, the actual raw data was destroyed -how convenient! But you're right, there's ABSOLUTELY NO SCANDAL HERE. Fail Jones just stepped down because he's uh, tired.

/And Michael Mann is about to begin the painful transition from Penn State to the State Pen
 
2009-12-05 02:43:48 PM  

nicksteel: T-Servo: nicksteel: I like this quote from John Christy

From Carl Sagan in 1987:
"A few saintly personalities stand out amidst a roiling sea of jealousies, ambition, back-biting, suppression of dissent, and absurd conceits. In some fields, highly productive fields, such behavior is almost the norm."

I like that one as well. thanx


Just keep in mind the context. Sagan argued that individual scientists don't have to be held to some impossible standard of perfection in order for the institution of science to keep working. It's self-corrective, at least in the natural sciences (social sciences can fool themselves for ages).

And he was contrasting that to politics and religion, where no one ever has to admit that they are wrong.
 
2009-12-05 02:44:54 PM  
Loving this thread. A lot of old familiars, who've been conspicuously absent of late as they apply salve to their butt-hurt, have found a thread or two of hope to cling to and are rushing back to gloat that they were right all along.

Here is why nobody likes you and your numbers are dwindling:

1) Your approach to discourse is obnoxious and arrogant.

2) Your arguments are typically BS, and getting more ridiculous all the time.

But mostly number 1. People can forgive wrong-headedness; persistent obnoxiousness is another matter.
 
2009-12-05 02:45:16 PM  

Thray: Strike three, Science, you're out.

/prepares the leeches


You should have gone with quicksilver. Leeches are still used in a number of medical operations, namely reattachment of limbs and such.

/maggot therapy is still used for necropsis and other heavily infected/rotted fleshy conditions.
 
2009-12-05 02:45:29 PM  

Halli: He ignored me for reminding him of the fact the he failed to grasp basic statistics when it comes to scientific polling. For a supposed skeptic he seems awfully close minded.


I get the feeling nicksteel doesn't like proving things, or having things proven to him. I have a feeling that kind of stuff makes him uncomfortable, so he prefers to keep his world mercurial, where facts are as fluid as quicksilver, and therefore as concrete as opinions.
 
2009-12-05 02:46:46 PM  
Why did this become such a political issue, again? Wouldn't most people prefer a cleaner environment, and not having coastal cities flooded? Is it simply GOPpers' hatred for Al Gore? Or is it once again astroturfing from their corporate overlords (because they know what's best for everyone)?
 
2009-12-05 02:47:39 PM  

Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".


so that's what you're left with? but..but..Bush!
 
2009-12-05 02:47:48 PM  

Il Douchey: Sadly, the actual raw data was destroyed -how convenient!


Their copy of the raw data was deleted. If you want the raw data it is still available from the same sources that gave it to the CRU.
 
2009-12-05 02:47:52 PM  

Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".


So.. all of the climate change research is being done by these few people? In the entire world? Really?

Is everyone else lying too? Is everybody in on it?
 
2009-12-05 02:48:53 PM  

imbrial: Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".

so that's what you're left with? but..but..Bush!


Don't shiat on his dreams.
 
2009-12-05 02:49:04 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Why did this become such a political issue, again? Wouldn't most people prefer a cleaner environment, and not having coastal cities flooded? Is it simply GOPpers' hatred for Al Gore? Or is it once again astroturfing from their corporate overlords (because they know what's best for everyone)?


Yep. You can see it as a failure in all their tactics.

Prepping for global warming would improve the economy, as two sectors are forced to coexist -- the green and brown sectors of the economy. But petro companies need a chance to get a foot up on the green sectors, so they denigrate them until they can control them. That's the basic tactic.

Others, like my Jesus freak Jehovah's Witness friend, are just useful idiots -- if global warming is real and bad, then God will stop it for us.
 
2009-12-05 02:49:33 PM  
Now...anyone actually looked at the paper? Did it make clear how the figure was formed or not? Would other scientists looking at the paper understand how that figure was achieved? If so, there's no "trick" at all. There's not even the teensiest, tiniest hint of a scandal.

It's even less suspicious than that -- the "trick" refers to a way of properly dealing with a known divergence between temperature readings and tree ring growth after 1960. Prior to that, tree rings make decent proxies for local yearly average temperature, based on prior measurements. Something changed around 1960, and I'd be interested to know if anyone's looked into that more (maybe a previously unknown side effect of nuclear weapon testing? has the correlation returned to some degree now that testing has mostly stopped?)

I think a lot of the people jumping on that particular quote assume "decline" refers to a recent decline in regional or global average temperatures that the eeebil greedy climate fakers are desperately trying to hide.
 
2009-12-05 02:49:34 PM  

Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".


If only you could prove this with some sort of method.
 
2009-12-05 02:49:48 PM  

dave2198: imbrial: Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".

so that's what you're left with? but..but..Bush!

Don't shiat on his dreams.


Woops, I meant to quote the post next to yours.

I really need to start previewing my posts :/
 
2009-12-05 02:50:16 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Why did this become such a political issue, again? Wouldn't most people prefer a cleaner environment, and not having coastal cities flooded?


What cities are flooding?
 
2009-12-05 02:50:33 PM  

Murkanen: Il Douchey: Sadly, the actual raw data was destroyed -how convenient!

Their copy of the raw data was deleted. If you want the raw data it is still available from the same sources that gave it to the CRU.


Don't shiat on his dreams.

/there, much better
 
2009-12-05 02:50:44 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Why did this become such a political issue, again?


Environmentalism has been considered a political wiffleball for the right for as far back as people can remember. You'd think that the conservatives would be for conservation, but because it is typically supported by the pointed headed intellectuals they're going to oppose it come hell or high water.
 
2009-12-05 02:50:53 PM  

Murkanen: You should have gone with quicksilver. Leeches are still used in a number of medical operations, namely reattachment of limbs and such.

/maggot therapy is still used for necropsis and other heavily infected/rotted fleshy conditions.


Very true, but I kind of like the use of something that can work, but not knowing why and applying it in absurd ways dynamic.
 
2009-12-05 02:51:07 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If only you could prove this with some sort of method.


It's hard to prove anything when the raw data is deleted.
 
2009-12-05 02:51:28 PM  
I'm honestly not sure which side of the issue you're talking about here

CaptainFatass: Loving this thread. A lot of old familiars, who've been conspicuously absent of late as they apply salve to their butt-hurt, have found a thread or two of hope to cling to and are rushing back to gloat that they were right all along.

Here is why nobody likes you and your numbers are dwindling:

1) Your approach to discourse is obnoxious and arrogant.

2) Your arguments are typically BS, and getting more ridiculous all the time.

But mostly number 1. People can forgive wrong-headedness; persistent obnoxiousness is another matter.

 
2009-12-05 02:51:55 PM  

bronyaur1: The financial fraud in the trading of these securities clearly means that markets work best, and that the science of global climate change is wrong.


That is farking gold-plated WIN.
 
2009-12-05 02:52:23 PM  

Murkanen: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Why did this become such a political issue, again?

Environmentalism has been considered a political wiffleball for the right for as far back as people can remember. You'd think that the conservatives would be for conservation, but because it is typically supported by the pointed headed intellectuals they're going to oppose it come hell or high water.


All they do is oppose intellectuals.

Only conservatives would think that opposing smart people all the time is a good strategy.
 
2009-12-05 02:53:23 PM  

Bocanegra: cameroncrazy1984: If only you could prove this with some sort of method.

It's hard to prove anything when the raw data is deleted.


Except... it wasn't.

Can't you read?
 
2009-12-05 02:53:46 PM  

Hick: What cities are flooding?


Remember yesterday in another climate change thread where you said such-and-such city had snow, so implied global warming is false?

It's funny because I live in Ottawa, ON -- the second coldest national capital in the world, after Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

It's December 5th, 16 days away from the shortest, most daylight-deprived day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, in the famously cold country of Canada, in the 2nd coldest capital in the world.

And there's not a snowflake on the ground.

How's that for anecdotal evidence?
 
2009-12-05 02:53:49 PM  
no worries, I will continue to shiat on dreams frequently and randomly ;)

dave2198: dave2198: imbrial: Bocanegra: Mrstupid7: Damn science just keeps letting us down.

It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".

so that's what you're left with? but..but..Bush!

Don't shiat on his dreams.

Woops, I meant to quote the post next to yours.

I really need to start previewing my posts :/

 
2009-12-05 02:54:13 PM  

Bocanegra: It's hard to prove anything when the raw data is deleted.


Still out to show the world what a farking moron you are?

What raw data have been "lost" or "deleted" in the sense that they are no longer held by the institutions responsible for them?
 
2009-12-05 02:55:05 PM  

Dr. Mojo PhD: Hick: What cities are flooding?

Remember yesterday in another climate change thread where you said such-and-such city had snow, so implied global warming is false?

It's funny because I live in Ottawa, ON -- the second coldest national capital in the world, after Ulan Bator, Mongolia.

It's December 5th, 16 days away from the shortest, most daylight-deprived day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, in the famously cold country of Canada, in the 2nd coldest capital in the world.

And there's not a snowflake on the ground.

How's that for anecdotal evidence?


Other countries don't count!
 
2009-12-05 02:56:39 PM  

imbrial: I'm honestly not sure which side of the issue you're talking about here


The only side with a diminishing number of supporters is the denialist side, so I'd assume that's the one he's referring to. The US is an outlier of course, but that's usually the case when it comes to scientific topics (see also: evolution, medical risks of smoking, etc).
 
2009-12-05 02:59:07 PM  

Bocanegra: cameroncrazy1984: If only you could prove this with some sort of method.

It's hard to prove anything when the raw data is deleted.


but it's easy to prove stuff if you repeat bullshiat frequently enough, especially immediately after its been debunked one or two posts up
 
2009-12-05 02:59:40 PM  
"Fraud?! In my CO2 scam Quota Register?

It's more likely than you think."
 
2009-12-05 03:01:11 PM  
It's December 5th, 16 days away from the shortest, most daylight-deprived day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, in the famously cold country of Canada, in the 2nd coldest capital in the world.

And there's not a snowflake on the ground.


Add to that Toronto's first snow-free November since those particular records began, and I'm getting ready for a relatively balmy January, possibly with a smoggy 20C day or two... which we actually had two winters ago, and 17C days the winter before that.

I grew up near Detroit, on the Soviet Canuckistani side of the river. My late November birthdays always featured snow on the ground when I was little. Not anymore.

Something's changing, and while it's well within the realm of possibility that the cause is entirely or mostly natural, a lot of very smart people and number-crunchers think the cause may have something to do with the results of extracting hydrocarbons from underground, burning them, and releasing the waste gases into the atmosphere, at ever-increasing rates, for a few hundred years.

Naw. Must be a commie scam to hoard billions in Beijing while good Americans shiver in Duluth.
 
2009-12-05 03:01:31 PM  

Hick: What cities are flooding?


I am shocked, SHOCKED, that Sarah Palin isn't all over this.
 
2009-12-05 03:04:01 PM  
That was my spidey sense, but I live in Rush Limbaugh's home town, so my immediate environment skews my perception a bit :)

Murkanen: imbrial: I'm honestly not sure which side of the issue you're talking about here

The only side with a diminishing number of supporters is the denialist side, so I'd assume that's the one he's referring to. The US is an outlier of course, but that's usually the case when it comes to scientific topics (see also: evolution, medical risks of smoking, etc).

 
2009-12-05 03:05:00 PM  

Bocanegra: It does when the results are skewed, manipulated, deleted and politicized like "climate change".


But hacking some peoples' emails, selectively quoting them, misrepresenting what is quoted, painting completely unrelated people with that brush, and instantly attacking everyone who offers an explanation just oozes forthrightness and non-politicizaion.
 
2009-12-05 03:05:18 PM  

nicksteel: WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you. If you would actually think about these posts instead of your knee jerk reactions, you might learn something. Oh hell, who I am kidding.


I'm guessing you don't possess a GED in reading comprehension.
 
2009-12-05 03:05:43 PM  
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN's main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week's climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.


img708.imageshack.us
Just the facts.

/some 'settled' science you got there.
 
2009-12-05 03:07:06 PM  

whatshisname: nicksteel: WOW!! You missed the point completely and turned it into an attack on people who disagree with you. If you would actually think about these posts instead of your knee jerk reactions, you might learn something. Oh hell, who I am kidding.

I'm guessing you don't possess a GED in reading comprehension.


seriously?? Is that all you got? I'm not the one who had trouble understanding the original statement, you were.
 
2009-12-05 03:07:39 PM  

Murkanen: imbrial: I'm honestly not sure which side of the issue you're talking about here

The only side with a diminishing number of supporters is the denialist side, so I'd assume that's the one he's referring to. The US is an outlier of course, but that's usually the case when it comes to scientific topics (see also: evolution, medical risks of smoking, etc).



Support in America,where I live and actually give a damn about is falling like a rock. Guess what, there wont be action on climate change in the US, which means those people you lock to mock, have already won. Cheers.
 
2009-12-05 03:09:02 PM  
From the Bureau of Redundancy Bureau:

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Can you imagine the Carbon Faceprint?
 
2009-12-05 03:10:16 PM  

PlatinumDragon: Add to that Toronto's first snow-free November since those particular records began, and I'm getting ready for a relatively balmy January, possibly with a smoggy 20C day or two... which we actually had two winters ago, and 17C days the winter before that.


In 2006-2007 Winter, Ottawa didn't get snow until January... January 16th, I think. That's absolutely unprecedented in my life time, though I haven't bothered checking. The year after setting no-snow records, Ottawa got record snowfalls -- I could enter my house on the second floor by walking up the snowbank outside. The snowbank was not from a plow, it was from the clouds.

I grew up near Detroit, on the Soviet Canuckistani side of the river. My late November birthdays always featured snow on the ground when I was little. Not anymore.

For you non-Canadians, us chattering natives refer to that place as "Windsor". It's like Detroit but... well, not buts. It's like Detroit. But without its own hockey team (the Red Wings are pretty much embraced as a Canadian team though, so that's ok).

Something's changing, and while it's well within the realm of possibility that the cause is entirely or mostly natural, a lot of very smart people and number-crunchers think the cause may have something to do with the results of extracting hydrocarbons from underground, burning them, and releasing the waste gases into the atmosphere, at ever-increasing rates, for a few hundred years.

I never understood that argument. "IT'S NATURAL!" the climate change contrarians scream "SO WE SHOULD DO NOTHING!"

Oh. So if a person's have a heart attack (heart beats are cyclical! So anything the heart does is normal!), as long as they didn't cause it themselves we should let them die? No? That's ridiculous you say?

Oh.

Naw. Must be a commie scam to hoard billions in Beijing while good Americans shiver in Duluth.

You have to be pretty emotionally weak to think that a worldwide cabal of climatologists is plotting against you, and nothing can stop them. It's less plausible than a James Bond plot.
 
2009-12-05 03:13:00 PM  

Brostorm: Murkanen: imbrial: I'm honestly not sure which side of the issue you're talking about here

The only side with a diminishing number of supporters is the denialist side, so I'd assume that's the one he's referring to. The US is an outlier of course, but that's usually the case when it comes to scientific topics (see also: evolution, medical risks of smoking, etc).


Support in America,where I live and actually give a damn about is falling like a rock. Guess what, there wont be action on climate change in the US, which means those people you lock to mock, have already won. Cheers.


...aaannnd there's the baseless argument and dickish tone I was speaking of. Good job, Bro!
 
Displayed 50 of 369 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report