FARK.com: (6942879) What goes around comes around: Leaked emails expose inner workings of prominent climate change skeptic organisation

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.

		What goes around comes around: Leaked emails expose inner workings of prominent climate change skeptic organisation (guardian.co.uk)		422
		More: Interesting, climate change skeptics, email

• • •

13134 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Feb 2012 at 10:35 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6942879

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

422 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

georgeyporgey		2012-02-15 01:35:52 PM

BigTuna: georgeyporgey: You would have a much easier argument to make if the Warmers don't keep changing their story.

It's called science, you dolt. That's how it works. You have a working theory and you update it as new information is discovered and incorporated. If someone proposes an alternate theory that withstands peer review and explains the phenomenon more accurately, then it becomes the new accepted theory. Repeat as often as necessary. Deniers have no alternate theory that can withstand even 10 minutes of scrutiny. All they have are misinformed arguments fed to the public by politically-motivated bomb throwers.

No science is abandoning a theory when the data is no longer fits it. Don't keep changing, "it warmimg. it's cooling, it's both warming and cooling!' Their theory is no longer backed up by credible data.

I suspect you are an english teacher not a scientist.

PlatinumDragon		2012-02-15 01:39:35 PM

georgeyporgey: BigTuna: georgeyporgey: You would have a much easier argument to make if the Warmers don't keep changing their story.

It's called science, you dolt. That's how it works. You have a working theory and you update it as new information is discovered and incorporated. If someone proposes an alternate theory that withstands peer review and explains the phenomenon more accurately, then it becomes the new accepted theory. Repeat as often as necessary. Deniers have no alternate theory that can withstand even 10 minutes of scrutiny. All they have are misinformed arguments fed to the public by politically-motivated bomb throwers.

No science is abandoning a theory when the data is no longer fits it. Don't keep changing, "it warmimg. it's cooling, it's both warming and cooling!' Their theory is no longer backed up by credible data.

I suspect you are an english teacher not a scientist.

So... what does the credible data indicate? For that matter... what is considered credible data for the purposes of your assertion?

dustygrimp		2012-02-15 01:39:43 PM

Tatterdemalian: I bet the UN doesn't file charges against these "hackers," or even make an empty threat to.

Also, it's pretty funny that they honestly think the fact that another organization is receiving funding is the same kind of "smoking gun" that the Climategate emails revealed about cherry-picked and even deliberately altered temperature data. Because the ignorant deniers will immediately drop all support for any organization that takes money to support itself, instead of being supported entirely by grassroots and unicorn farts. Deniers are just stupid dummy dum-dum stupid heads, so they must all believe this, amirite?

/keep trying to hide the decline

Know how I know you didn't read the article?

hypnoticus ceratophrys		2012-02-15 01:43:39 PM

georgeyporgey: No science is abandoning a theory when the data is no longer fits it. Don't keep changing, "it warmimg. it's cooling, it's both warming and cooling!' Their theory is no longer backed up by credible data.

I suspect you are an english teacher not a scientist.

How did abandoning the theory of gravity work out for you when Einstein introduced general relativity?

BronyMedic		2012-02-15 01:43:41 PM

georgeyporgey: No science is abandoning a theory when the data is no longer fits it. Don't keep changing, "it warmimg. it's cooling, it's both warming and cooling!'

That's not what AGW/MMGW theory says.

From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Links to relevant studies and data are linked in those pages.

georgeyporgey: Their theory is no longer backed up by credible data.

Please, post links to the relevant credible data which disprove AGW.

brantgoose		2012-02-15 01:48:53 PM

gunslinger_RG: "There is no Peak Oil," Newt Gingrich told a crowd in Colorado this week.

"Now that we're doing hydro-fracking near the population centers, the bogeyman comes out. 'Wooo, look at what it's going to do to you,'" Santorum said. "They scare you and they intimidate you to trust them to give them more power."

"Right now, the only global warming strategy that might work worldwide may be to pray." ~Bill O'Reilly

"The Earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood." ~Rep. John Shimkus, US House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

It seems Bill Mahar articulated the GOP position pretty accurately, "And God gave man dominion over the earth and said "This is your rental. Taketh and beateth the schite out of it for it is just a rental.

That's what I like about Newt Gingrich. He's not afraid to talk utter crap.

Peak oil exists by definition. It is defined as that point in time at which oil production peaks.

Proof that there is peak oil:

Oil is produced by natural processes that are very slow.
The Earth is spheroid of finite volume.
The amount of oil that the Earth contains is 1) limited to the upper crust, and 2) finite.
The amount of oil that can be extracted with any given or possible technology is finite.
The cost of extraction rises as easy to find and easy to exploit oil is used up.
Some oil and other natural mineral resources will always be unexploitable regardless of technological advances.

Peak oil is that point at which new finds and technological extraction and processing advances are insufficient to make up for the declining, finite resources of oil or other minerals in the ground.

Even if you believe the Gold hypothesis that oil is made by microbes and thus not a product of the burial of biomass, the raw materials for making oil are finite and the means of getting to commercially exploitable oil reserves is limited.

There may be enough natural gas to keep us going for some time when petroleum is depleted, and enough bitumen or coal to keep us going a bit after that, but peak oil is not only upon us, it is very likely behind us.

The biggest oil field discoveries date to the 1930s. Since then, oil fields have been smaller or harder to exploit or both. We aren't looking off shore or in the Arctic, or in unstable countries of Central Asia, just for fun. We are looking for oil in unlikely and difficult places because we have to: the easy cheap oil has peaked already. We will NEVER find oil reserves like those of the 1930s in all probability.

Take peak coal. The Industrial Revolution began in England. UK coal production peaked several generations ago. They switched to imported coal. But most of Europe's production has now peaked in countries that joined the Industrial Revolution later than the UK (Germany, notably) and that began exploiting their own coal belatedly (in the 1930s, say).

Coal has peaked in many other countries since, while the demand rises inexorably. We may be able to find a lot more petroleum, natural gas, bitumen, and coal, but mostly it has peaked in terms of discovery, exploitability and production in the right places. We have to search the wrong places now. Which means more military adventurism, more corrupt and violent petrostates, and more expense from bribes all the way upstream to drilling test wells in remote weather where the terrain and climate do not cooperate, such as 4,000 feet down in the Ocean, in the Arctic, in Russia, and the politics are even more problematic.

Conservatives thrive on low intelligence and low information. They thrive on delusional belief systems based solely on faith, which is a fancy ten dollar word for wishful thinking. Newt Gingrich is one of the most-thriving conservative bullshiatters in the world. He bullshiats himself first, so he can honestly bullshiat everybody else with confidence and sincerity.

common sense is an oxymoron		2012-02-15 02:01:15 PM

s2s2s2: There wasn't a political angle until the profiteers created one and put their purchased politicians to work on it.

I have a picture of one around here, somewhere...
[assets.nydailynews.com image 485x367]

Nice try. Except that the politicization of AGW is a response to An Inconvenient Truth: Great hay was made of the fact that the author was *gasp* a LIBERAL! and therefore not to be trusted.

Would the AGW debate have played out the same way if the same book had been written by A. Nonny Mouse, Ph.D.?

You are right about one thing, though. There wasn't a political angle until the profiteers created one and put their purchased politicians to work on it.

dustygrimp		2012-02-15 02:03:32 PM

Lets play good vs bad.

Player 1: Does scientific research to find ways to prove a theory that could endager future generations if it is correct.
Player 2: Does no scientific research.
Player 1: Spends money to fund those research projects.
Player 2: Spends money to fund people in the effort to discredit player 1
Player 1: Does all this to convince politicians to change and enact laws that will stop the pollution they believe to be the cause of global warming.
Player 2: Does all this to convince politicians to keep the laws the same so they can continue to pollute so as not to curtail profits.
Player 1: Collects money from people that want to save lives.
Player 2: Collects money from people who want to make more money.

So who is good and who is bad?

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:09:09 PM

BronyMedic: georgeyporgey: No science is abandoning a theory when the data is no longer fits it. Don't keep changing, "it warmimg. it's cooling, it's both warming and cooling!'

That's not what AGW/MMGW theory says.

From: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Links to relevant studies and data are linked in those pages.

georgeyporgey: Their theory is no longer backed up by credible data.

Please, post links to the relevant credible data which disprove AGW.

I would like to see you post the credible data that proves it. Not some numbers on a chart that at times mirror each other but usually do not. REAL PROOF.

James F. Campbell		2012-02-15 02:09:37 PM

dustygrimp: So who is good and who is bad?

BOTH SIDES ARE BAD SO VOTE ~~SELFISH ASSHOLES~~ LIBERTARIAN.

j0ndas		2012-02-15 02:12:55 PM

The leaked emails don't mean crap. The environmental "scientists" working for the other side were actively falsifying and/or covering up data; all Heartland has been doing is working to promote its position in the media. Every organization does that. Given the latest REAL data, the worst you can expect over the next century is maybe a few cm of increased ocean levels, with no significant temperature increase and as much possibility for a mini ice age as further global warming. Given that technology is advancing at a page that will see even geothermal power probably developed within the next 50 years, with major advances in solar and battery technology within the next 5-10 years, going off half-cocked and trying to implement non-competitive technology now is asinine and short-sighted. It actually sets back the purported goals of liberal environmentalism, since making things more expensive here shifts the balance of trade to countries without the same strictures, meaning the countries that pollute the worst are producing more goods and therefore increasing world pollution overall, while we foot the bill by collapsing our own economy. Subsidize RESEARCH, yes, but let the market decide what to implement.

BronyMedic		2012-02-15 02:19:35 PM

chuckufarlie: I would like to see you post the credible data that proves it. Not some numbers on a chart that at times mirror each other but usually do not. REAL PROOF

You're the one making an extraordinary claim (i.e. AGW IS NOT REAL! THE NUMBERS ARE FALSIFIED! AGW "SKEPTICS" ARE NOT BIASED!) which flies in the face of scientific concensus and current accepted theory.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to disprove that theory. Please proceed with doing so.

Thanks in advance!

hypnoticus ceratophrys		2012-02-15 02:21:40 PM

chuckufarlie: REAL PROOF.

I think you're looking for the math dept.

BronyMedic		2012-02-15 02:23:36 PM

chuckufarlie: Derpy and not-so-subtle attempt at the logical fallacy known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof"

Wait. Didn't you get outed as an Anti-AGW shill on here under a different name?

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:28:32 PM

dustygrimp: Lets play good vs bad.

Player 1: Does scientific research to find ways to prove a theory that could endager future generations if it is correct.
Player 2: Does no scientific research.
Player 1: Spends money to fund those research projects.
Player 2: Spends money to fund people in the effort to discredit player 1
Player 1: Does all this to convince politicians to change and enact laws that will stop the pollution they believe to be the cause of global warming.
Player 2: Does all this to convince politicians to keep the laws the same so they can continue to pollute so as not to curtail profits.
Player 1: Collects money from people that want to save lives.
Player 2: Collects money from people who want to make more money.

So who is good and who is bad?

BAD - making up crap to push a political agenda.

GOOD - exposing the lie

BronyMedic		2012-02-15 02:30:34 PM

chuckufarlie: BAD - making up crap to push a political agenda.

GOOD - exposing the lie

Wonderful, we both agree! Although, you seem to have confused which position you find yourself in.

So, uh, I'll ask this again: Where's the evidence that it's all a lie?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, especially when those claims fly in the face of known science.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:32:15 PM

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: I would like to see you post the credible data that proves it. Not some numbers on a chart that at times mirror each other but usually do not. REAL PROOF

You're the one making an extraordinary claim (i.e. AGW IS NOT REAL! THE NUMBERS ARE FALSIFIED! AGW "SKEPTICS" ARE NOT BIASED!) which flies in the face of scientific concensus and current accepted theory.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to disprove that theory. Please proceed with doing so.

Thanks in advance!

Nonsense, you have to proof that your theory is true. You have no idea how science works.

BTW - scientific concensus - that is a fallacy. Even if it was true AND IT IS NOT, science is not a process that is based on majority rule.

Current accepted theory - who has accepted it? Not everybody, not even close

Zafler		2012-02-15 02:32:18 PM

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: Derpy and not-so-subtle attempt at the logical fallacy known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof"

Wait. Didn't you get outed as an Anti-AGW shill on here under a different name?

Yeah, he's also nicksteel. Apparently, he was getting mocked too much as soon as he showed up in threads so he created a new log in.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:33:52 PM

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: BAD - making up crap to push a political agenda.

GOOD - exposing the lie

Wonderful, we both agree! Although, you seem to have confused which position you find yourself in.

So, uh, I'll ask this again: Where's the evidence that it's all a lie?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, especially when those claims fly in the face of known science.

way to avoid answering my challenge. That proofs at least one thing - you do not know shiat about AGW. And it also goes a long way to show that there is no proof.

KNOWN SCIENCE? What known science?

PsiChick		2012-02-15 02:35:23 PM

BronyMedic: Hickory-smoked: Here's what confuses me...

Skeptics say that researchers and scientists are motivated entirely by sweet, sweet grant money and maintaining the opulent lifestyle they are accustomed to... but "The Heartland Institute" backed by ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers is somehow trustworthy.

Thread over in 6. Last one out, turn off the lights and lock the door, please.

/You use that workd Skepics, but I don't think we have the same definition of it.
/Climate Change Skeptics aren't Skeptics. They're the "True Believers" who "Deny the evidence" they accuse everyone else of being.

Thank you. Most people who claim to be skeptics are just deluded idiots who never actually looked up the term.

/If you're a Climate Change Skeptic, you know it's happening, because you actually read and comprehend data.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:35:42 PM

Zafler: BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: Derpy and not-so-subtle attempt at the logical fallacy known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof"

Wait. Didn't you get outed as an Anti-AGW shill on here under a different name?

Yeah, he's also nicksteel. Apparently, he was getting mocked too much as soon as he showed up in threads so he created a new log in.

Zafler - why do you three always have to lie? Have you gotten so accustomed to lying about AGW that you can no longer recognize the truth. I explained why I changed IDs a long time ago and your lie is not even close.

Maybe you would like to explain why you ACTIVELY post under THREE IDs.

Zafler		2012-02-15 02:37:08 PM

chuckufarlie: I explained why I changed IDs a long time ago and your lie is not even close.

Oh, I must have missed it. Got a link to the explanation?

Oh, and I love that you're trying to claim I have 3 log ins.

PunGent		2012-02-15 02:38:10 PM

georgeyporgey: PunGent: georgeyporgey: rkgoboom: Georgeyporgey: Prove it. Think up another theory, write a paper, submit it for review to 100 different journals, in any country you like. If your results are sound and your methods reproducible it will be published and added to the annals of science. Do that and I guarantee you a cushy tenured position at a world renowned big ten university. You will earn 1/10th as much as a private sector employee with the same credentials, have to manage unmanageable grad students and undergrads, research, and teach, but it will be the same as the other profs. Your work would be a breakthrough in the field and you would be revered.

Unless you can't find an alternative theory, then you are an idiot blinded by his own preconceived notions, and not amenable to rational discourse.

Step up, shill.

I see! I see! Only peer reviewed papers are real, all others are cranks. Is that how science works? I would suggest that you look at the Warmers' leaked emails, were they tried to exclude skeptical papers. Guess what, as soon as one does that, one discredits the whole peer review process. I

f I were you, I would try very hard to censure those scientist to bring back credibility to the system. As long as they are control the process, or even the hint of control, the system is flawed.

And the Denier's access to large pools of extraction-industry money is credible in your book?

Nice double standard there.

Huh ? Nice change of topic. Ignore what I say, and rebut with something stupid! But, you sir are kind of stupid. Probably still believe in the tooth fairy still!

Answer the the charge that the warmers' deny the publication forum, and then claim they are unpublished therefore not relevant.

But, if you want to talk about money, there is several orders magnitude of money more in warmers' tales than in skeptics. Don't mean to burst your bubble.

Ooh, an ad hominem!

Granted, that's better than Deniers usually do :)

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:38:35 PM

BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: Derpy and not-so-subtle attempt at the logical fallacy known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof"

Wait. Didn't you get outed as an Anti-AGW shill on here under a different name?

NO, I have explained the ID change. Would it make you feel any better if I went back to the old ID? Probably not.

Part of the reason for changing my ID is that two or three farkers took that ID and signed up for a bunch of other websites in order to attack me for what they posted. They know who he is.

HighZoolander		2012-02-15 02:39:14 PM

chuckufarlie: BronyMedic: chuckufarlie: I would like to see you post the credible data that proves it. Not some numbers on a chart that at times mirror each other but usually do not. REAL PROOF

You're the one making an extraordinary claim (i.e. AGW IS NOT REAL! THE NUMBERS ARE FALSIFIED! AGW "SKEPTICS" ARE NOT BIASED!) which flies in the face of scientific concensus and current accepted theory.

The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to disprove that theory. Please proceed with doing so.

Thanks in advance!

Nonsense, you have to proof that your theory is true. You have no idea how science works.

BTW - scientific concensus - that is a fallacy. Even if it was true AND IT IS NOT, science is not a process that is based on majority rule.

Current accepted theory - who has accepted it? Not everybody, not even close

Did you even read those leaked documents? Did you read them? Do your own research.

/Ok, I can't resist a few good quotes (from the bad astronomer)
"[Dr. Wojick's] effort will focus on providing curriculum that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

"Efforts at places such as Forbes are especially important now that they have begun to allow high-profile climate scientists (such as [Peter] Gleick) to post warmist science essays that counter our own. This influential audience has usually been reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out."

emphasis added - quotes and links to original sources here:
Bad Astronomer (new window)

The Hearland Institute is sounding more and more credible all the time - they just want the truth to come out!

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 02:39:56 PM

Zafler: chuckufarlie: I explained why I changed IDs a long time ago and your lie is not even close.

Oh, I must have missed it. Got a link to the explanation?

Oh, and I love that you're trying to claim I have 3 log ins.

You do have three log ins. One of your other "personalities" admitted it some time ago.

Why do you need a link to the explanation? Is your memory that bad? That might explain a few thinks about all three of you.

hypnoticus ceratophrys		2012-02-15 02:54:24 PM

chuckufarlie: NO, I have explained the ID change. Would it make you feel any better if I went back to the old ID? Probably not.

Part of the reason for changing my ID is that two or three farkers took that ID and signed up for a bunch of other websites in order to attack me for what they posted. They know who he is.

Figures that he'd try to frame this up as a conspiracy too. He got busted posting as both Nicksteel and Chuckufarlie for quite some time when he outed himself on accident, then tried to claim he didn't for a time after that while the Nicksteel account quietly disappeared. This is the thread, for the record:

This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his (new window)

janzee		2012-02-15 03:01:57 PM

CapnBlues: [i195.photobucket.com image 400x280]

Heh, that Koch on the right look totally baked..

watson.t.hamster		2012-02-15 03:27:32 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: You might want to consider a career somewhere besides the U. of Pheonix, DeVry, etc. If your PhDs are paid so low that they need grant money to subsidize cost of living, I can't imagine why they're still working for your particular academic institution.

I would just like to highlight this statement: grant money, to PhDs doing research in Academia, is not that big of a deal.

Thank you.

compesconsisus: watson.t.hamster: cool story bro!

Except climate scientists are FAR from a unified bunch. The situation you describe is an orange compared to a bag of apples. Monolithic corporate cultures do indeed cause the situation you describe. And yes, people who publish results that contradict accepted science tend to come under fire, but that fire tends to be "show us the work", not "you are fired".

If, after showing your work, you are found to have used questionable science, many scientists will label you an idiot. But you can hop right back on that horse, try again, publish again, so on and so forth. And hey, some scientists who published and were crucified by the scientific community turned out to be vindicated, but it is incredibly rare. As in "only a few times in the last century" rare.

Most of the people who are publishing anti-AGW crud either do not show their work, or are shown to be hacks when they do. A few of them have done good work, but all it does is say that it MIGHT not be primarily driven by us.

The problem with waiting for absolute proof that rapid climate change is completely anthropogenic is that the absolute proof can potentially be an utter disaster. As in destruction of our civilization. As opposed to some potential for market destabilization if we attempt to work on the issue, which might still cause some suffering and death, but not on such a grand scale.

The problem with the peer review system is that it is exactly as good as the peer reviewers.

In general it works, and there really isn't a better solution out there. However it does give a lot of power to a relatively small population with really no recourse.

However, in light of evidence that this process has been tempered with waving around "peer reviewed" is not the unquestionale defense it once was.

Link (new window)Link (new window)Link (new window)

I'm sure none of these sources will be deemed acceptable, even the direct copy and paste quotes from high level researchers won't count. But consider the notion that if this process were compromised, what would that mean for the entire field?

watson.t.hamster		2012-02-15 03:34:24 PM

PunGent: Do you have a solution to the Dilemma of the Commons that doesn't involve government?

Not really.

But the entire question revolves around: is this really the dilemma those with a lot invested in one side claim it is? When the side pushing the communal solution is the side that also benefits from pushing a communal solution I think it is fair to be skeptical. Doesn't mean they're wrong per se but it does beg for a pretty high standard of proof.

I have no problem using pooled resources to deal with communal problems in general. However I would like to determine that it is an actual problem first (and if so is it one we can "fix").

If global warming isn't a problem then it doesn't matter who is causing it, we should ignore it.
If it is and we can't change it then we should put our money in to dealing with the consequences (levees, better water storage techniques, helping farmers adjust to climatic changes, etc) rather than towards fixing it.
If it is and we can change it *then* we should go off with these various carbon schemes.

Many terrible predictions have been made to show that GW is a problem; greater hurricanes, more droughts, mass famine, more refugees, waters rising by 20ft, etc etc etc. Most haven't really panned out that way though. So we're still on the "is this actually a problem" stage.

So for instance both raising taxes to pay for public education and sacrificing people at the altar of the sun-god were communal solutions to communal problems (just two random examples). Let's make sure the sun actually won't rise before we start hacking out still-beating hearts.

CapnBlues		2012-02-15 03:35:10 PM

janzee: CapnBlues: [i195.photobucket.com image 400x280]

Heh, that Koch on the right look totally baked..

it's hard to hold your eyes open when they're weighed down by billions of dollars.

alternately

you can smoke all the pot you want when you personally own half of the political process.

Zafler		2012-02-15 03:39:10 PM

watson.t.hamster: 'm sure none of these sources will be deemed acceptable, even the direct copy and paste quotes from high level researchers won't count. But consider the notion that if this process were compromised, what would that mean for the entire field?

You mean the quotes that include people resigning over the forced publication of an extremely flawed paper? A paper that was published over the objections of the reviewers?

Or are you alluding to Energy and Environment, a journal that isn't recognized as a peer review publication and whose own editor has out right stated they try to push the editors viewpoint regarding climate change?

Your ignorant criticism of peer review aside, the core aspects of greenhouse gas forced climate change has been known for over 150 years. You'd have to overturn the greenhouse gas theory to have a credible challenge for anthropogenic climate change.

JackieRabbit		2012-02-15 03:41:03 PM

"What's all this crazy talk we've been hearing lately about global climax change?" I think it's ridiculous. People have been climaxing the same way for thousands of year and it works pretty good. So why change it now?!? And on a global scale? Just because someone thinks up something new doesn't mean ... W-what's that?

"Global climate change"

"Oh! Well, that's very different. Never mind."

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 03:45:36 PM

hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: NO, I have explained the ID change. Would it make you feel any better if I went back to the old ID? Probably not.

Part of the reason for changing my ID is that two or three farkers took that ID and signed up for a bunch of other websites in order to attack me for what they posted. They know who he is.

Figures that he'd try to frame this up as a conspiracy too. He got busted posting as both Nicksteel and Chuckufarlie for quite some time when he outed himself on accident, then tried to claim he didn't for a time after that while the Nicksteel account quietly disappeared. This is the thread, for the record:

This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his (new window)

Tell me, dumbass, why is this anything worth discussing. I have admitted that I used to use that ID.

If you had anything intelligent to talk about, maybe crap like this would be way down your list.

watson.t.hamster		2012-02-15 03:48:30 PM

BronyMedic: Please point out to me which senate or house committee awards scientific funding through the State University Pathways, NOAA, FEMA, National Science Foundation, EPA, and other government organizations?

Oh, wait......

United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology; a committee of the United States House of Representatives. It has jurisdiction over non-defense federal scientific research and development. Specifically, the committee has partial or complete jurisdiction over the following federal agencies: NASA, the Department of Energy, EPA, ATSDR, NSF, FAA, NOAA, National Institute of Standards and Technology, FEMA, the U.S. Fire Administration, and United States Geological Survey.

Additionally funding is set in the annual federal budget. Which most would agree is somewhat influenced by politics.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 03:52:52 PM

Hickory-smoked: Here's what confuses me...

Skeptics say that researchers and scientists are motivated entirely by sweet, sweet grant money and maintaining the opulent lifestyle they are accustomed to... but "The Heartland Institute" backed by ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers is somehow trustworthy.

Yep, they actually believe that college professors and climatologists have access to more money than propaganda fronts for multi-billion-dollar industries.

Stupid so hot it could burn through the earth's core and come out in China.

chuckufarlie		2012-02-15 03:54:29 PM

Zafler: watson.t.hamster: 'm sure none of these sources will be deemed acceptable, even the direct copy and paste quotes from high level researchers won't count. But consider the notion that if this process were compromised, what would that mean for the entire field?

You mean the quotes that include people resigning over the forced publication of an extremely flawed paper? A paper that was published over the objections of the reviewers?

Or are you alluding to Energy and Environment, a journal that isn't recognized as a peer review publication and whose own editor has out right stated they try to push the editors viewpoint regarding climate change?

Your ignorant criticism of peer review aside, the core aspects of greenhouse gas forced climate change has been known for over 150 years. You'd have to overturn the greenhouse gas theory to have a credible challenge for anthropogenic climate change.

The greenhouse gas theory was devised as a way to explain a complex system to people (mostly children) with no scientific background. It ignores the fact that the planet on which we live is a complex system with many things that impact it.

Trying to get people to accept your theory just because you say 'greenhouse gases" makes you either a child or a moron.

BTW - how old are you? Just trying to get a handle on why you make such statements.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 03:57:33 PM

Splinshints: gunslinger_RG: "There is no Peak Oil," Newt Gingrich told a crowd in Colorado this week.

"Now that we're doing hydro-fracking near the population centers, the bogeyman comes out. 'Wooo, look at what it's going to do to you,'" Santorum said. "They scare you and they intimidate you to trust them to give them more power."

"Right now, the only global warming strategy that might work worldwide may be to pray." ~Bill O'Reilly

"The Earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood." ~Rep. John Shimkus, US House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

I can't even begin to imagine what a horrible life it must be to have such a small, simple, and cowardly mind as these people have. How terrible must it be to intentionally diminish yourself and intentionally deny what you can experience with your own senses just so that you can cling to the beliefs of a 2000 year old pack of groupies following a hippy around the desert groping lepers?

I just... I... I don't even know. Sometimes I worry that other people much smarter than me think the same of me. I want to be smarter and to know more and experience more of the universe and it torments me on some level to know that I just wasn't born with the genetic capacity for some of it while other people were....

But these people... god... these people wallow in self-inflicted and dangerous ignorance like pigs in shiat. Although that's sort of an unfair comparison since a pig is at least smart enough to choose something better than a shiat puddle if he's given the chance.

I just don't know... these people are just horrible and I can't feel anything but a mix of contempt and pity for them. How do you even begin to try and correct the destructive self-ignorance on display there? How do you try and teach a man who has made it his guiding ethic to be as ignorant of the world around him as he possibly can be?

Keep in mind....most of their followers may be truly decieved by the tribal loyalty chants, and believe. But many if not most of the leaders are just protecting their unearned political power with any weapon they can, no matter how many plebes get killed. They know they're wrong, and they truly could not care less.

Contempt, yes. Pity.....fark that. Save your pity for the ones who still have the capacity to be decent human beings.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 04:05:37 PM

Voiceofreason01: first: "...Carbon Industry" - WTF?

second: "The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation....." So, an organisation with the stated goal of proving that global warming isn't happening is trying to prove that global warming isn't happening? WHAT A SCANDAL!

No....the "scandal" is that bloggers and other activists who have been claiming for years to be "independent analysts", working out of a desire to find the truth, have been exposed for what everybody with half a brain knew they were...well-paid shills with an anti-science agenda, who exist solely to muddy clear waters and rally the support of the paranoid and ignorant so that certain industries can continue to make billions of dollars without having to pay anything for the huge amounts of environmental damage they do. True American Conservatives, once again, shiatting on the entire world to make a buck, and refusing to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the obvious consequences of their actions.

Damnhippyfreak		2012-02-15 04:07:01 PM

watson.t.hamster: The problem with the peer review system is that it is exactly as good as the peer reviewers.

In general it works, and there really isn't a better solution out there. However it does give a lot of power to a relatively small population with really no recourse.

However, in light of evidence that this process has been tempered with waving around "peer reviewed" is not the unquestionale defense it once was.

Link (new window)Link (new window)Link (new window)

I'm sure none of these sources will be deemed acceptable, even the direct copy and paste quotes from high level researchers won't count. But consider the notion that if this process were compromised, what would that mean for the entire field?

Whoh. First off, I think you have some big misconceptions about exactly what peer-review is and it's place within scientific publication. First off, it has never been an "unquestionale defense" [sic]. What is published in scientific journals is routinely questioned, directly in letters to more formal comments to full papers, and indirectly in introductions to papers.

Second, peer-review is not meant to be a conclusive assessment of a paper (unless the problems with a paper are severe). Reviews are done on a voluntary, generally non-paid basis, and often on a short time scale. Reviewers aren't meant to replicate results for example, but instead give feed-back to the authors and editor. Peer-review is a sort of a filtering first step - what is screened out is obvious mistakes, papers of poor quality or those not up to the standards of the journal. More in-depth critiquing is properly done in the letters, more formal comments and papers that I mentioned above, and again, is routinely done once a paper gets published.

On a side note, that first link you provided probably doesn't say what you seem to think it does. Just a heads-up.

watson.t.hamster		2012-02-15 04:07:32 PM

Zafler: watson.t.hamster: 'm sure none of these sources will be deemed acceptable, even the direct copy and paste quotes from high level researchers won't count. But consider the notion that if this process were compromised, what would that mean for the entire field?

You mean the quotes that include people resigning over the forced publication of an extremely flawed paper? A paper that was published over the objections of the reviewers?

Or are you alluding to Energy and Environment, a journal that isn't recognized as a peer review publication and whose own editor has out right stated they try to push the editors viewpoint regarding climate change?

You must be reading a different article.

Your ignorant criticism of peer review aside, the core aspects of greenhouse gas forced climate change has been known for over 150 years. You'd have to overturn the greenhouse gas theory to have a credible challenge for anthropogenic climate change.

You do realize it's not that simple right? You're talking about an incredibly complex system that you have narrowed down to a simple system taught in gradeschool. If were as simple as what you've boiled it down to any linear increase in greenhouse gases would necessarily lead to a linear increase in temperatures. Obviously that isn't the case.

/also atoms look exactly like little solar systems and genes do nothing but code for a protein.

verbaltoxin		2012-02-15 04:11:32 PM

Attention all true Patriots: this revelation by the Guardian does mean that, effective immediately, our comrad Generallissimo Barack Taximus Maximus al-Bashir Hussein Obama II of the Kenyan Hinterlands is now Supreme Commissar of the Greater Peoples Democratic Socialist Union of Earth. Report immediately to your nearest FEMA in-processing kiosk to surrender your firearms, Bibles, and tax returns. Income tax on everyone making over 100k USD is immediately raised to 110%, with the federal budget going mainly to Universal Socialist Healthcare, bailouts for wind farms and geothermal plants, subsidies for electric cars and monorails, liberal arts major thesis projects, and green strip clubs. Following your FEMA in-process brief you are to be immediately bussed to the nearest United Nonchurch of the Gay-Atheist Alliance for your mandatory gay marriage. Afterwards you will participate in a mass, gay orgy. Later on you will be trucked to the Global Warming Awareness Center, where you will be divided into groups and put to work in recycling centers.

Because apparently this is what you cranks believe is what's going to happen if we all acknowlede that global warming is occurring.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 04:12:36 PM

farkin_Gary: cirby: Jackpot777:
Funny graphic.

You should note that the "limited operating budgets" of the major environmental groups total up to several billion dollars, and nothing like that has been spent by "the oil companies," who are mostly quite content to charge you more and more money because of "environmental research."

Oil companies aren't really oil companies any more. They're "energy companies." They're going to be the people selling you those "green watts," and managing the grid in the future. Hell, half of the profit made by the people who sell you gasoline now comes from the sodas and snacks and cigarettes they sell you when you come in to buy gas - do you think it's going to be any different when you come to the station to buy biodiesel or to get a fast charge for your electric car?

Shush, you. Reality checks don't go over well 'round here.

especially when the "reality checks" have nothing to do with any of the issues at hand. Suck ass, loserbiatch.

Zafler		2012-02-15 04:13:30 PM

watson.t.hamster: You do realize it's not that simple right? You're talking about an incredibly complex system that you have narrowed down to a simple system taught in gradeschool. If were as simple as what you've boiled it down to any linear increase in greenhouse gases would necessarily lead to a linear increase in temperatures. Obviously that isn't the case.

I am well aware it's not that simple. But, without negating the well documented greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide, a gas released in known quantities from the ignition of fossil fuels, there is no way to explain the observed increase in the Earths energy budget. This increase leads to a general warming trend.

I just used the simplified version to point out a critical flaw in your denigration of anthropogenic climate change.

hypnoticus ceratophrys		2012-02-15 04:16:47 PM

chuckufarlie: hypnoticus ceratophrys: chuckufarlie: NO, I have explained the ID change. Would it make you feel any better if I went back to the old ID? Probably not.

Part of the reason for changing my ID is that two or three farkers took that ID and signed up for a bunch of other websites in order to attack me for what they posted. They know who he is.

Figures that he'd try to frame this up as a conspiracy too. He got busted posting as both Nicksteel and Chuckufarlie for quite some time when he outed himself on accident, then tried to claim he didn't for a time after that while the Nicksteel account quietly disappeared. This is the thread, for the record:

This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, linking to a googlegroups account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as nicksteel, asserting that it is his account (new window)
This is chuckufarlie, as chuckufarlie, again in regard to the same account asserting that it is his (new window)

Tell me, dumbass, why is this anything worth discussing. I have admitted that I used to use that ID.

If you had anything intelligent to talk about, maybe crap like this would be way down your list.

It highlights both the depth of your integrity and your penchant for using conspiracy theories to explain the world around you.

Jick Jackson		2012-02-15 04:17:21 PM

hey isn't the chick in the first pic of hubiestubert's the same one that was on the "I quit" fake photo meme? Sure looks like her face.

s2s2s2		2012-02-15 04:20:10 PM

common sense is an oxymoron: You are right about one thing, though. There wasn't a political angle until the profiteers created one and put their purchased politicians to work on it.

I failed to quote that, it wasn't mine. Politicization of AGW predates Al Gore.

Common knowledge is also an oxymoron.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 04:22:13 PM

watson.t.hamster: eraser8: watson.t.hamster: Because there is no money in climate research? People don't get grants for this?

Real climate researchers don't get money for producing particular results. The grants are there to further knowledge -- not to produce propaganda.

Ideally yes, in reality no. There is, sadly, always a political aspect to certain kinds of research.

watson.t.hamster: HotWingConspiracy: So wouldn't a job denying climate change be a safer bet? There will never be an end to that spigot.

I forget, how much guaranteed federal funding is there in that?

If the sole purpose for getting involved in this is a stable paycheck, they could comfortably sit on their ass and soak up denier money. They wouldn't even have to compete for grants.

I never said it was their sole purpose.

Have you ever worked in an academic institution? If so you'd know that while most researchers have good intentions and aren't simply out to become rockstars (as people try to argue to refute the money aspect of it) money is still forefront on their minds most of the time. Particularly now when budgets are so tight.

Would they outright lie? Well some researchers would and they get caught from time to time but in general no. Would they see a new data set that doesn't really jive with existing theories that could potentially make them a pariah if they published it and say "er . . maybe let's hold on to this for now, double check the stats see if it pans out, no need to be too hasty". Sure.

It's not lying, but being more eager to publish and pursue the more established line of thought (that is linked to greater acceptance of proposals for funding) and being more reluctant to go against that orthodoxy (which has been shown to lead to funding cuts) is certainly a mild form of dishonesty.

And somehow, this "mild dishonesty" which of course you have zero evidence for, is, in your shiatty little brain, an equally powerful bias as a deluge of fully corporate-sponsored, mostly non-scientist acitivists who constantly claim to have overturned the majority scientific consensus, without any evidence whatsoever, yet still somehow manage to get allm kinds of airtime from far-right news outlets.

What's it like to bang your head against reality so hard? Doesn't it make your ears bleed? Do you just eat shiat for the wonderful flavor?

watson.t.hamster		2012-02-15 04:29:10 PM

Damnhippyfreak: Whoh. First off, I think you have some big misconceptions about exactly what peer-review is and it's place within scientific publication. First off, it has never been an "unquestionale defense" [sic]. What is published in scientific journals is routinely questioned, directly in letters to more formal comments to full papers, and indirectly in introductions to papers.

I think I understand it pretty well. Among real researchers it is not unquestionable. Among climate researchers when challenged on their views however? The science is settled, why are no peer reviewed papers challenging us if it's any other way?

Second, peer-review is not meant to be a conclusive assessment of a paper (unless the problems with a paper are severe). Reviews are done on a voluntary, generally non-paid basis, and often on a short time scale. Reviewers aren't meant to replicate results for example, but instead give feed-back to the authors and editor. Peer-review is a sort of a filtering first step - what is screened out is obvious mistakes, papers of poor quality or those not up to the standards of the journal. More in-depth critiquing is properly done in the letters, more formal comments and papers that I mentioned above, and again, is routinely done once a paper gets published.

And as I pointed out at least some scientists have admitted to using peer review to target and remove papers that challenge the theory. That is a flaw in the system.

Canned Tamales		2012-02-15 04:30:26 PM

watson.t.hamster: PlatinumDragon: Reduce the number of humans engaging in activities fueled by energy sources that add previously-buried carbon to the environment. IOW, have fewer children.

Reducing the human population when it clearly "wants" to trend upward would take a lot of government to enact.

BronyMedic: I never said that it did. I said that the reduction in expendature that would be necessary if MMGW did not exist and the increase in taxable profits with deregulation of the heavy industrial, energy, oil and natural gas industries as well as an associated drop in consumer pricing would be incredibly beneficial.

In addition to this, federal grant money is not awarded based on towing a company line or research favorable to one.

Governments don't want to reduce expenditures. They want to expand. That takes money. The form of the spending doesn't really matter.

Consider the EPA. Did it expand or shrink the government? Expand obviously. It requires funding and bureaucrats and the like. It isn't going anywhere. Now consider if we add to it's mission statement regulating carbon emissions, something produced in literally every human activity from manufacturing to agriculture to breathing. Would that necessarily lead to an expansion or contraction of this organization?

The government isn't worried about money. They can always get that. Governments generally care more about power.
GORDON: Whenever someones paycheck relies on "proving" a point of view, there are going to be lies and corruption of facts. That is what the entire point has been, the entire time, for both sides of the issue.

Uh, no, dipshiat...real scientists still get paid their modest salaries, even if the research turns up unexpected results. Shill get cut if they don't find a way to tow the company line. But you go ahead and keep thinking that Fox is "fair and balanced" and that corporations care about the truth.

Displayed 50 of 422 comments