# ClimateGate 2.0? Are you fucking kidding me? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 27, 2011, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243 "2011-11-27T15:39:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/181 "2011-11-29T22:34:38Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I’ve often taken the position that mankind’s global pollution is having even more damaging effects than what is usually discussed, including changes in the thermodynamics of the ocean/atmosphere system, but when I question some of the wilder claims made by people who seem, “alarmists”, they start equating my questioning some outrageous claims, with a denial of evolution, the holocaust, and then for good measure they insist I must believe in a flat earth. Nah, what happens is that he does not have the capacity of identifying good sources. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s insane. It’s seriously fucked up. This latest “climategate” nonsense seems to be an orchestrated attempt to influence global policy, with the unknown hacker(s) having an agenda, which seems to revolve around feeding starving people with the money, rather than lining politicians pockets with it. And that is not fucked up it seems for FX, so never mind that the emails were misrepresented and never showed anything that discredited the science, we should think of the starving people… never mind that the droughts that will be more intense in a warmer world will cause more starvation in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/182 "2011-11-30T05:28:28Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > That’s one of the more fascinating things that came out of the purloined letters. The effort to deceive, the petty (but understandable) desire to cause trouble for anyone who asks for data, and of course the huge mess that ended up being about the simple truth, that they couldn’t “turn over the records”, because they either lost them or never documented what they were doing, so it could be replicated. Uh… What? “The effort to deceive”? Deceive who about what? As has been pointed out very, _very_ many times, there have been independent investigations into this “scandal”. They all turned up the same clean bill of health. The desire to cause trouble for anyone who asks for data? Uh… no. Not anyone. McIntyre specifically, and others of his ilk for whom data, _good or bad_, is ammunition to be used against their research, their careers, and their public personas, regardless of how intellectually dishonest it is to treat it as such. See my office analogy; this man is a serious douche. Lastly, citation needed on that last point. > [@](#): > > No matter how loudly somebody tries to shout that the emails mean nothing, that little saga that was revealed is quite revealing. And the drama! Oh the behind the scenes drama. It’s high theater. Refer to my post to Brazil84. It is offensively stupid of you to fall for this crap. Again: where are the quotes, _n context_, that are so fucking damning? Or are you just taking the out-of-context ones that shite-sites like The Daily Mail or Fox News are peddling and going from there? > [@brazil84](#): > > There’s no need to respond to McIntyre’s arguments. Just give him the records. It takes a few hours to copy everything and the copy program can be run overnight. > > And if the information is not critical or important, that’s all the more reason to just turn it over. You know what, I’m just gonna quote from a [Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate) article posted earlier in the thread: “Indeed, McIntyre has made goading scientists—particularly Mann—close to a full-time job.” ““If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone,” CRU head Phil Jones wrote to Mann in February 2005. He believed that if McIntyre found an error, **no matter how minor, the skeptics would have a field day**.” “In 2008, he sought raw data and email correspondence from Benjamin Santer, a scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer refused, arguing that **the data were already publicly available**. In a letter to a fellow scientist he vented that the time-consuming request was part of “ **a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from research**.” He called McIntyre “the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science,” continuing, “**We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an ‘audit’ by Steven [sic] McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues**.”” So yeah… I honestly don’t blame them. This shit takes time that should shouldn’t have to take, the info was apparently already public, every slightest mistake (for example, just the recognization that NASA data was off by 1/6th of a degree) would lead to conservatives jumping up and down like wildcats over their newly-deceased meal, and you are _severely_ underestimating the time it took to deal with this bozo. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/183 "2011-11-30T05:35:44Z")
It’s hilarious, really: if they decide to spend time on this bullshit, then they have very little time for research to get their jobs done. If they _don’t_, they’re branded as corrupt, and accused of manipulating data. Sad… ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/184 "2011-11-30T06:53:01Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes it is. If the money, rather than the truth, is what matters (which is the prerequisite to this discussion, for all intents and purposes), then the scale damn well does matter. No it doesn’t. If you make $100 on one side and the other guy makes only $50, do you think either of them wants to lose that money? Or the potential to earn it? You can’t say that one side is corrupt because they stand to lose billions and not hold the other side to the same standard when they stand to gain only millions (actually billions, too, but why quibble?). One side can’t claim that the other side is only disagreeing because of the money while they themselves benefit financially from their message being deemed correct. I’m saying that you have to then focus on the message, not the financial motivation. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/185 "2011-11-30T08:04:06Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > U > > So yeah… I honestly don’t blame them. This shit takes time that should shouldn’t have to take, the info was apparently already public, every slightest mistake (for example, just the recognization that NASA data was off by 1/6th of a degree) would lead to conservatives jumping up and down like wildcats over their newly-deceased meal, and you are _severely_ underestimating the time it took to deal with this bozo. 1. There is a difference between “time it took to deal with McIntyre” and “time it would have taken to simply give him what he wants.” 2. Please either show me the Freedom of Information requests made by McIntyre which are analogous to asking for childhood photos, etc. or admit that no such requests were made. 3. If I can document to you that McIntyre was denied information by warmist researchers which was NOT already available, will you concede that you have lost the argument? 4. Are you seriously claiming that the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work is sometimes a legitimate reason for a scientific researcher to suppress or destroy information? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/186 "2011-11-30T08:13:02Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > By the way, I do not engage with **Gigobuster** due to his refusal to answer reasonable questions about his position. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > I have him on ignore, but even so, the quotes by others of his spench are enough. The Gobbledygooker 2.0 translation: “we are cowards” As pointed before, they are not ignoring me but ignoring the science and the evidence. > **[Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm)** > > Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of... > [@](#): > > Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. > > With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters. > [@](#): > > Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century. > > “This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/187 "2011-11-30T08:34:27Z")
I see the 84 one is reaching for the yes / no simple answer tactic to then ignore the overall context. > **[What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?](https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm)** > > \While some of the private correspondance is not commendable, an informed examination of their 'suggestive' emails reveal technical discussions using techniques well known in the peer reviewed literature. Focusing on a few suggestive emails merely... > [@](#): > > The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstream climate science is guilty by association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory. > > In reality, Climategate has not thrown any legitimate doubt on CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science community. The entire work of CRU comprises only a small part of the evidence for AGW. There are all sorts of lines of evidence for global warming, and for a human influence on climate, which in no way depend on the behaviour of the CRU scientists. Global warming has been observed not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as well as being confirmed by many other indicators such as ocean heat content, humidity, sea level, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice. And while the hockey stick tells us that humans have caused a profound disturbance to our climate system, we don’t need it to know that humans are causing global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling, nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers. > > But this reality doesn’t fit into the narrative that the contrarians would like to tell: that AGW is a house of cards that is falling down. It is very difficult to attack all of these diverse lines of evidence for global warming. Instead they tend to focus on some of the better publicized ones and try to associate them with a few individuals, making a much easier target. Yet while contrarians have been nosing around in scientists’ emails, the actual science has, if anything, become more concerning. Many major studies during 2009 and 2010 found things may be worse than previously thought. > > Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves. Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climate science which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of mitigating future warming. And yes, McIntire is a bozo, he presented what he thought were great arguments to the British Parliament on why Phil Jones and other needed to be punished only to get Parliament to give him what amounted to be a middle finger: > [@](#): > > The House of Commons report on the emails stolen from CRU has vindicated Phil Jones – he has “no case to answer”: > > > [@](#): > > > > The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU. > > > > ``` > > In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty--for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"--we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity" > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/188 "2011-11-30T12:04:22Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 1. There is a difference between “time it took to deal with McIntyre” and “time it would have taken to simply give him what he wants.” Yes, and these people had to do _both_. Again, lemme pull the creationism analogy: you don’t just have to show creatards like Hovind the data. That’s not going to help; they don’t _care_ about the data. If you give them your data and facts, then you’re also going to be stuck with the burden of showing the general public that the creationist’s brutally dishonest > [@](#): > > 1. Please either show me the Freedom of Information requests made by McIntyre which are analogous to asking for childhood photos, etc. or admit that no such requests were made. You missed the point entirely (that he has no fucking business requesting so much crap in the first place), but fine: I don’t have proof of it happening and will retract this point. > [@](#): > > 1. If I can document to you that McIntyre was denied information by warmist researchers which was NOT already available, will you concede that you have lost the argument? What, you mean admit that ClimateGate is a real issue that we should care about? Because _one supervisor got his facts slightly wrong_? Because these men were unwilling to give data to a person who has basically turned antagonizing them into a job? Thank you very kindly for _missing the fucking point_. > [@](#): > > 1. Are you seriously claiming that the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work is sometimes a legitimate reason for a scientific researcher to suppress or destroy information? You know, I hate to break it to you, but there’s a difference between “the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work” and “the desire to prevent a cretinous douchebag from spreading confusion and misinformation to discredit an entire field of research”. _OF COURSE_ it’d be bad if they destroyed information to avoid real scrutiny. But guess what: a total of 6 independent investigations (according to wikipedia) confirmed that they did not do this. And even if they had… Well, McIntyre is a douche. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/189 "2011-11-30T13:17:47Z")
It’s like the defenders of the Cause haven’t actually read any of the emails. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/190 "2011-11-30T13:28:19Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Yes, and these people had to do _both_. Why did they have to respond to McIntyre’s arguments? What rule, policy, or practice entails such a requirement? > [@](#): > > You missed the point entirely (that he has no fucking business requesting so much crap in the first place), but fine: I don’t have proof of it happening and will retract this point. Ok, thank you. My response to your analogy stands. > [@](#): > > What, you mean admit that ClimateGate is a real issue that we should care about? Sure. There is a big difference between failing to turn over information which is already available and failing to turn over information which is not already available. You are claiming that we are in the former situation. I disagree. I’m not trying to nitpick you here – it seems like a critical, make-or-break distinction to me. > [@](#): > > You know, I hate to break it to you, but there’s a difference between “the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work” and “the desire to prevent a cretinous douchebag from spreading confusion and misinformation to discredit an entire field of research”. _OF COURSE_ it’d be bad if they destroyed information to avoid real scrutiny. So let’s see if I understand your position: You believe that the desire to avoid scrutiny of his work is a legitimate reason for a scientific researcher to suppress or withhold information if he anticipates that the scrutiny will be dishonest or otherwise unfair? ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/191 "2011-11-30T14:35:27Z")
And all is quiet … ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/192 "2011-11-30T14:54:04Z")
Well, while we await the inevitable climate debate, perhaps the actual content of the emails could be discussed. With a subject that is related to the above argument over FOIs and reluctant scientists. From the Science article, the Phil Jones interview with Eli Kintisch [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5968/934/suppl/DC1](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5968/934/suppl/DC1) > [@](#): > > Q: One of those skeptics was Warwick Hughes, who wanted station data. What did you mean when you wrote in an e-mail “even if WMO [World Meteorological Organization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data? We have 25 or so years invested in the work.” > > ``` > **Phil Jones:** I'd rather not go there. It was an e-mail written in haste. > > ``` Of course you don’t want to talk about it. But the truth is, **your actions** , which were anything but hasty, were about hiding, deceiving and preventing other people from playing with “your data”, which is understandable. (and I am being nice here) What is not understandable is the rabid believers who see this, and simply hand waves it away. (especially the part about “I will destroy it rather than share it”) On that same interview, we see, in regards to the refusal to release data, the consequences. > [@](#): > > Q: When did the pressure grow most severe? > > P.J.: In July 2009 we received 60 Freedom of Information requests in a few days–each request was for five countries’ worth of data. What is so entertaining about that comment, is that the source of these requests, as well as why it happened, is all public. > **[CRU Refuses Data Once Again](https://climateaudit.org/2009/07/24/cru-refuses-data-once-again/)** > > Let me review the request situation for readers. There are two institutions involved in the present round of FOI/EIR requests: CRU and the Met Office. Phil Jones of CRU collects station data and se… You can simply read the efforts to get Phil and company to simply acknowledge which countries refused to share station data. Which illustrates some of the how and why of the conflict. That the true believer still insists the emails mean nothing, that is amazing. Well, not really. The true believer probably can’t be bothered to actually read any emails. They just let the authorities think for them. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/193 "2011-11-30T15:04:04Z")
And… Now you see why I do not put anyone on ignore, because people like FX end up looking like an idiot when the explanations and context and **exonerations by the authorities** are skipped. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/194 "2011-11-30T15:07:27Z")
Despite my prediction that the actual emails won’t be discussed itt, I am confident I can post excerpts, links to complicated analysis of dozens of emails (because they involve long conversations and complicated issues), pretty much anything, and my prediction will still hold. After two years of watching true believers online, I know one thing for sure. The last thing they want to do is read or discuss the actual emails. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/195 "2011-11-30T15:09:23Z")
Idiots like Garbagebuster, (who will spin and shout and flood any and all topics} can go on forever about their views, but they never ever want the actual emails, much less the story behind them, to be discussed in depth. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/196 "2011-11-30T15:20:57Z")
Bwa Ha Ha! He don’t know me really well does he folks? 🙂 In fact after so many discussions in the past I did read many of the emails, he is not even right about that bit also. Suffice to say, all his “analysis” misses the investigations already made and the fact that when this was taking place the freedom of information office was siding more often than not with the scientists in declaring most of the requests to be frivolous in nature, the hack then took place as a desperate move by the deniers. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/197 "2011-11-30T15:43:35Z")
Again, GIGO, Budget, other sane people; thanks. I don’t really use the ignore function, I find it a bit easier to gloss over and tune out. Fortunately, FX has demonstrated, probably to the entire board mostly through his nuclear blog, that he’s wholly forgettable. Brazil and OWP have pretty much dug their own heads in the sand for anyone following along. But it wouldn’t be visible or so clear if there weren’t cites and refutations for the clouded waters, so again thanks. I certainly don’t have the patience. … Oh, Uzi, the problem with the false equivalence is that the on one hand there is a vast economic incentive to lie and lie big (which has funded a political alignment, so a sub-motivation has developed to support the party line). On the other hand, there is an economic incentive–to keep your salary–_by telling the truth and being as accurate as possible._ Of course there are limited exceptions, but exceptions don’t really save a false equivalence. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/198 "2011-11-30T15:48:28Z")
There is yet another example of how the true believer is able to ignore anything that might cause them to think. They simply hand wave away anything that bothers them, and label people as “insane”, anything to avoid being uncomfortable. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/199 "2011-11-30T15:51:48Z")
I would bet money it’s too subtle a point for the true believer. So… > [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Again, GIGO, Budget, **other sane people** ; thanks. See? Only the people repeating the “right” message are sane. Everyone else, well, they must be crazy. And the true believer actually can’t see what they are doing. It’s one reason the Cause seems like a religion. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/200 "2011-11-30T16:01:07Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > I would bet money it’s too subtle a point for the true believer. So… > > See? Only the people repeating the “right” message are sane. Everyone else, well, they must be crazy. > > And the true believer actually can’t see what they are doing. It’s one reason the Cause seems like a religion. Peculiar religion that had to convince the super majority of scientists with evidence after a process of 100 years of testing and discoveries. [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) Remember folks, the consensus before was that CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming, but that the man made one was not an issue or a problem, THAT consensus was the orthodoxy back in the day, real “Galileos” like Callendar and Plass encountered lots of criticism and got vindicated later by the evidence. So, yeah, \*\*denial of even the history of it \*\*is grounds to declare FX insane. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=11)