# 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:** 11
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/201 "2011-11-30T16:04:04Z")
I would bet money the above post contains nothing involving Climategate, Climategate 2.0, or any content, issues or interesting shit from the stolen documents. This is a pattern that repeats all over internets. ---
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/202 "2011-11-30T16:09:57Z")
Of course that was a reply to his religion accusation, but why should I complain when he is digging even deeper into his hole? ---
**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, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/203 "2011-11-30T16:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > Arrhenius made a calculation for doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, and estimated it would raise the Earth’s temperature some 5-6°C (averaged over all zones of latitude).(3) > > Arrhenius did not see that as a problem. He figured that if industry continued to burn fuel at the current (1896) rate, it would take perhaps three thousand years for the CO2 level to rise so high. Högbom doubted it would ever rise that much. One thing holding back the rise was the oceans. According to a simple calculation, sea water would absorb 5/6ths of any additional gas. > > (That is roughly true over a long run of many thousand years, but Högbom and Arrhenius did not realize that if the gas were emitted more rapidly than they expected, the ocean absorption could lag behind.) > > Anyway temperatures a few degrees higher hardly sounded like a bad idea in chilly Sweden. Another highly respected scientist, Walter Nernst, even fantasized about setting fire to useless coal seams in order to release enough CO2 to deliberately warm the Earth’s climate.(4\*) [http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) “Another highly respected scientist, Walter Nernst, even fantasized about setting fire to useless coal seams in order to release enough CO2 to deliberately warm the Earth’s climate.” Oh man, if only the internets existed at that time. I can see the topics THAT idea would have spawned. ---
**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, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/204 "2011-11-30T16:27:55Z")
Uh, so he is lying about the ignore part, that figures, it figures also that he only is reduced to make a joke about the early history of it and miss the rest of the history, religions are not like that, religions do not change a basic position when evidence is presented. And it is a history that shows once again what an ignoramus FX is. ---
**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, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/205 "2011-11-30T17:09:40Z")
> [@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. Yeah, right, that’s exactly what I meant. :rolleyes: Your credibility on the boards is so shot, your posts really don’t matter. But, someone crossing by via a Google search or a new member who hasn’t figured out that you’re one of the Board jokes may bother taking the time to read one of your posts. I’m grateful to GIGO et al because they have the patience to continually and thoroughly debunk your tin-hat rantings. As for the others, I’m similarly appreciative that the attempts as mixing politics and science (or whatever the motivation for subverting their capacity for analytical and rational thinking) are refuted with cites and highlights where logic and simple reading have failed. Ensuring that explanations and clarity is available to counter the lies, obfuscations and distortions is absolutely necessary. Are various climate models close to perfect? Of course not. There is plenty of critical analysis and debate about what assumptions are being used and where, and plenty of contentious issues that need to be worked out. But that has nothing to do with the magic words OWP keeps chanting or the general cat-calling based on WorldNetDaily-level analysis. Evolutionary biology isn’t a dead science. There are active debates, issues and questions that are being pursued. But if a creationist starts posting fundamentalist dogma and long-dispelled pretenses at arguments, of course they will be mocked by most on this board. Those trying to do so with the basic tenants of the theory (so is gravity; float away motherfucker) are absolutely, positively no different. That BPC can put up and provide the context for a hatchet job that makes Romney’s quote-Obama-quoting-McCain ad look like it has integrity–yet the hardcore denialists/creationisth-wannabees can’t see what it was and continue to float their turds in the punchbowl is, well, sad. Makes the baby Cecil cry. ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/206 "2011-11-30T17:15:19Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Why did they have to respond to McIntyre’s arguments? What rule, policy, or practice entails such a requirement? It’s called public opinion. Here’s a lovely quote from the people on RealClimate: “An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. **The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round…Net effect on lay people? Confusion.** Net effect on science? Zip.” See, here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter _how_ wrong creationists are. If they are left unchecked, and people don’t do the digging to show how they’re full of shit in their impressions of evolutionary theory, then they’re going to win the PR war by sheer weight of bullshit. Same here, really. > [@](#): > > 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. _sigh_ Does it even matter worth a damn? In regards to the science involved, you have absolutely no change in the actual data. All you have done is smeared the reputation of valuable members of the scientific community, and produced more confusion. This would have absolutely no result on the actual data. It depends on what we’re really going for here. I’m simply going to restate that you really seem to be underestimating just how bad this McIntyre guy got and leave it at that. Oh, and one more thing: from the interview that proved that FX is not completely moronic and useless: > [@](#): > > Q: You’re a widely published scientist and with a lot more prestige than your critics. Why then were you reticent to share the data with these outsiders? > > P.J.:\*\*\* I was pointing them to where they could get the same data and they could do their own analysis\*\*\*. They are intent on repeating the analyses of others. They are of course entitled to do whatever they want to, it’s a free world, but they just don’t seem intent on wanting to do their own work. They just seem intent on wanting to repeat what others have done. _ **They’re trying to slow us down, and waste time** _. > [@](#): > > Q: It sounds to me like you believe that, if this had been available a year ago, you might have avoided some of the problems that have happened. > > P.J.: _ **Yes, but you could’ve gotten access to this GHCN and data many years ago and done this sort of analysis yourself. Anyone could have done it** _. Yeah… Seems to me a little less like “withholding data” and a lot more like “not spoon-feeding people trying to attack him”. > [@](#): > > 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? Unfinished work? Incomplete analyses? Private Emails? Fuck yes, I think it’s reasonable to withhold that. Hell, I think it’s reasonable to withhold that kind of thing in general, as long as the finished research gets either published or abandoned and released in an unfinished form. Add to that the fact that the person demanding the information is a dishonest asshole who has made a career out of attacking these people, their reputations, and the like, that it takes time and effort from real scientists to give him what he wants… Maybe then, you can understand, if just for a moment, why these people are reluctant to give it out to them? > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Well, while we await the inevitable climate debate, perhaps the actual content of the emails could be discussed. Yes, I’d support this. My stance is that there is nothing which, taken in context, paints the research done by that group in a negative light. You hold the opposing position… So, FX, do me a favor. Find me original emails (in context) that you object to. Not snippets, _full emails_. Then we can talk about them. Until then, I’ll stand by sources such as the [NAS](http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/blog/9752) having confirmed that the science involved was correct. > [@](#): > > 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) > > 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) You know, this is actually pretty funny. Look down just a liiiiittle bit: > [@](#): > > Q: You’re a widely published scientist and with a lot more prestige than your critics. Why then were you reticent to share the data with these outsiders? > > P.J.:\*\*\* I was pointing them to where they could get the same data and they could do their own analysis\*\*\*. They are intent on repeating the analyses of others. They are of course entitled to do whatever they want to, it’s a free world, but they just don’t seem intent on wanting to do their own work. They just seem intent on wanting to repeat what others have done. _ **They’re trying to slow us down, and waste time** _. Yeah. That’s totally not taking anything out of context. :rolleyes: As said to Brazil, he’s not withholding data. He’s simply not spoon-feeding you. 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. 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. Not in that interview… The subject was not brought up again. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, as challenged above: find the full emails that you object to, and I’ll look at them. Until then, I’m going to put my trust in the NAS rather than Rush Limbaugh. And yes, I _am_ tired of this debate. But I don’t leave a debate until I’m sure of one of two things: 1. The other person involved is incorrigibly insane/stupid 2. One of us has been conclusively proven wrong and nobody is offering counterevidence Call me naive… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/207 "2011-11-30T17:21:56Z")
Boy, some of you people are really heartless. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this is all a cry for help? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/208 "2011-11-30T17:23:58Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Makes the baby Cecil cry. What makes the baby Cecil cry is so-called men of science acting in the opposite of a scientific manner. Usually, things like falsifiability are part and parcel to a scientific claims. But nope, not when it comes to global warming. Usually, scientists are open minded, allowing the data to take them wherever it might lead, and invite others to look at their work. But nope, not with global warming. They bully editors and try to hide anything that might disagree with where they want the data to take them. Now I say this as someone who, I think, agrees with most of the things **Gigo** and team believe. Certainly that the earth has warmed and that man has contributed to it. I do think we have an accurate idea of the degree to which the warming is man-made, and consequently, how much we can do to have a positive effect. I really don’t think it matters all that much either, as I think we should be doing what we can to be more efficient, protect the environment, move off of fossil fuels, etc. But the way these debates always go is almost anti-scientific. When people bring so much fervor and vitriol to the debate and go out of their way to demonize all those who might disagree with them—or even question them—the debate is more about a religious like belief than science. Complete with the smell of fear and desperation. ---
**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, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/209 "2011-11-30T17:32:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What makes the baby Cecil cry is so-called men of science acting in the opposite of a scientific manner. Usually, things like falsifiability are part and parcel to a scientific claims. But nope, not when it comes to global warming. Usually, scientists are open minded, allowing the data to take them wherever it might lead, and invite others to look at their work. But nope, not with global warming. They bully editors and try to hide anything that might disagree with where they want the data to take them. History shows that that is not true at all; that is, the whole history, stop cherry picking just the recent one. > [@magellan01](#): > > Now I say this as someone who, I think, agrees with most of the things **Gigo** and team believe. Certainly that the earth has warmed and that man has contributed to it. I do think we have an accurate idea of the degree to which the warming is man-made, and consequently, how much we can do to have a positive effect. I really don’t think it matters all that much either, as I think we should be doing what we can to be more efficient, protect the environment, move off of fossil fuels, etc. But the way these debates always go is almost anti-scientific. When people bring so much fervor and vitriol to the debate and go out of their way to demonize all those who might disagree with them—or even question them—the debate is more about a religious like belief than science. Complete with the smell of fear and desperation. Uh, so it is not vitriolic at all to claim **before hand** that there is a conspiracy going on and the scientists are committing fraud? ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/210 "2011-11-30T17:44:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > What makes the baby Cecil cry is so-called men of science acting in the opposite of a scientific manner. … But the way these debates always go is almost anti-scientific. When people bring so much fervor and vitriol to the debate and go out of their way to demonize all those who might disagree with them—or even question them—the debate is more about a religious like belief than science. Complete with the smell of fear and desperation. I don’t usually quote an entire response, but I tend to agree with everything you said. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/211 "2011-11-30T17:45:16Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > History shows that that is not true at all; that is, the whole history, stop cherry picking just the recent one. Huh? The one what? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, so it is not vitriolic at all to claim **before hand** that there is a conspiracy going on and the scientists are committing fraud? Claiming there is a conspiracy and the scientists are committing fraud is just that, a claim…a position. It can be put forth with vitriol or without. The same way you could counter such claims with vitriol or without. The problem with vitriol in a debate about science is that it has no place. And the ones who add it cease looking like men of science and more like men of religion. Really. That’s why I wish you would handle these threads differently. You’re take what should be dispassionate discussion about science and turn it into an exercise in ridicule and belittling. Now that may cause some who share your view to cheer “Fuck Yeah”, but is that you’re goal to get people who already agree with you to have a pep rally? Or would you prefer that the time you spend might result in winning people over to your side? Whether you realize it or not, you’ve been doing the former. And doesn’t help the latter. ---
**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, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/212 "2011-11-30T17:46:53Z")
The quote problem above is confusing me. Who said what? ---
**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, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/213 "2011-11-30T17:48:02Z")
Never mind, I looked at the post quoted and figured it out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/214 "2011-11-30T17:54:10Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > 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. > [@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. MORE projection and hypocrisy? Don’t you ever get tired of the same old bullshit? ---
**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, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/215 "2011-11-30T17:54:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Huh? The one what? Cited already in the link to FX. Besides that, I already mentioned the 70s myth that claimed all scientists reported an ice age coming, it was more likely that editors bullied reporters to write about an ice age that was not reported by most of the scientists back then. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Claiming there is a conspiracy and the scientists are committing fraud is just that, a claim…a position. It can be put forth with vitriol or without. The same way you could counter such claims with vitriol or without. The problem with vitriol in a debate about science is that it has no place. And the ones who add it cease looking like men of science and more like men of religion. Really. That’s why I wish you would handle these threads differently. You’re take what should be dispassionate discussion about science and turn it into an exercise in ridicule and belittling. Now that may cause some who share your view to cheer “Fuck Yeah”, but is that you’re goal to get people who already agree with you to have a pep rally? Or would you prefer that the time you spend might result in winning people over to your side? Whether you realize it or not, you’ve been doing the former. And doesn’t help the latter. Meh, as pointed out before it is really a projection to claim that we are dealing with a religion, I really wonder what you are smoking to pretend that what the deniers are doing with the climategate emails is not vitriol incarnate. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/216 "2011-11-30T17:58:51Z")
GIGO, if there’s still time to edit you should fix your quote-box. The lack of nested quote makes it read as if you’re quoting yourself, not magellan01. If not, maybe report it to a mod and ask them to fix. ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/217 "2011-11-30T18:15:38Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > GIGO, if there’s still time to edit you should fix your quote-box. The lack of nested quote makes it read as if you’re quoting yourself, not magellan01. If not, maybe report it to a mod and ask them to fix. Uh, too late, magellian originally made the mistake in the previous post and it came like that when I quoted, but to make it clear, it is \*\*magellian01 \*\*being cited on the last quote. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/218 "2011-11-30T18:19:44Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Uh, too late, magellian originally made the mistake in the previous post and it came like that when I quoted, but to make it clear, it is \*\*magellian01 \*\*being cited on the last quote. THAT"S A LIE! You just wanted to sound smart so you put your name over my quote! 😉 Yeah, **Gigo** replied to my post before I went back and fixed up the screwed-up coding. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/219 "2011-11-30T18:27:09Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Are various climate models close to perfect? Of course not. There is plenty of critical analysis and debate about what assumptions are being used and where, and plenty of contentious issues that need to be worked out. But that has nothing to do with the magic words OWP keeps chanting I merely don’t understand why you and yours are so reluctant to name the prediction you readily refer to. Sure, lead off with that line you just mentioned – _there’s plenty of critical analysis and debate about what assumptions are being used and where, and plenty of contentious issues that need to be worked out_ – but why not then follow up with a quick _“but, having said that, we currently forecast at least X rise in temperature over the next Y years,”_ for whatever values of X and Y you believe are coming? If you think that’s akin to “magic words” on this subject, I’d ask whether you’d feel that way about – well, anything else, I suppose. > [@](#): > > Those trying to do so with the basic tenants of the theory (so is gravity; float away motherfucker) are absolutely, positively no different. Like you, I believe in the basic tenets of the theory of gravity – which is the exact reason I’m likewise willing to offer predictions about folks who are out to float away rather than fall to earth. Why should this be “absolutely, positively” different? Why be coy and quiet in this one context, when I can’t imagine doing so in any of 'em? ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/220 "2011-11-30T18:59:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I merely don’t understand why you and yours are so reluctant to name the prediction you readily refer to. Start [here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html). It’s the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 Summary for Policymakers ‘Projections of Future Changes in Climate’. The Fifth Assessment Report is due out over the next few years (2013/2014). I expect it to have updated and more refined predictions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=12)