# 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:** 2
**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 28, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/21 "2011-11-28T05:02:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Meh, more nonsensical arguments for argument sake I merely want to know whether you’re in fact predicting global warming, on your timetable of choice; as far as I can tell, your prediction of future global temperature is (as per Scylla’s point) entirely consistent with the world getting no warmer – and possibly even getting a bit cooler – indefinitely. If I’m mischaracterizing your position, then simply correct me by supplying a prediction that _ **isn’t** _ consistent with the world failing to get warmer. (I fail to see how such a request for clarification is nonsensical, or constitutes argument for argument’s sake; if I state that your prediction seems consistent with the globe getting no warmer, the natural response would be _“yes, that’s correct,”_ or _“no, because the following would falsify my prediction…”_) ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/22 "2011-11-28T05:07:58Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > But aside from all that, the OP was pitting an ugly and blatant attempt to lie about climate researchers in an attempt to malignantly change the course of discussion. Even if you don’t accept anything about the state of the science, the transparent hack job should offend your sensibilities. This. I’m not particularly educated about the science involved; I understand the very basics, I understand that the statistical data points to a clear trend, and I understand that almost all of the scientific community that has dealt with the issue is in agreement on it, save for a few biased die-hards like Lord Munkton (or however you spell that moron’s name). Beyond that, my understanding is average at best. That said, it doesn’t _matter_ whether the science is solid or not in this thread; that’s a whole different debate (one which is more or less over, by the way). What matters is this absolutely ridiculous string of quote-mining bullshit being spouted off as revolutionary counterevidence against global warming by tripe stations like The Daily Mail. :rolleyes: ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/23 "2011-11-28T05:12:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I merely want to know whether you’re in fact predicting global warming, on your timetable of choice; as far as I can tell, your prediction of future global temperature is (as per Scylla’s point) entirely consistent with the world getting no warmer – and possibly even getting a bit cooler – indefinitely. > > If I’m mischaracterizing your position, then simply correct me by supplying a prediction that _ **isn’t** _ consistent with the world failing to get warmer. (I fail to see how such a request for clarification is nonsensical, or constitutes argument for argument’s sake; if I state that your prediction seems consistent with the globe getting no warmer, the natural response would be _“yes, that’s correct,”_ or _“no, because the following would falsify my prediction…”_) Ah yes, dishonesty is your forte, please deal with the rest of my actual quote or shut up. We are dealing with actual data and the attempts by people to continue to claim that it was altered, the world already got warmer and one is just dishonest when attempting to avoid the issue. ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/24 "2011-11-28T05:27:22Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > That said, it doesn’t _matter_ whether the science is solid or not in this thread; that’s a whole different debate (one which is more or less over, by the way). Hey, you’re the OP; if you want to declare that a different debate, it’d be your call all the way – but once you add that said debate is more or less over, I can’t help but ask _ **what** _ is “more or less over”: what is being predicted with rock-solid assurance, such that an unexpected result to the contrary would surprisingly falsify it? Is it a global amount of warming, or – as I’ve seen GIGO state quite recently – is it some other sort of climate change which may or may not involve warming? [QUOTE=GIGObuster] Ah yes, dishonesty is your forte, please deal with the rest of my actual quote or shut up [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > one is just dishonest when attempting to avoid the issue. Oh, is that how the debate is supposed to go? Intriguing. Your prediction appears entirely consistent with global _ **cooling.** _ You refer to this prediction as “global warming,” which is simply dishonest. Supply a falsifiable prediction that requires warming, or shut up; it’s just dishonest to avoid the issue. ---
**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 28, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/25 "2011-11-28T05:42:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A well-reasoned post, **Scylla**. A few minor quibbles. Where? I must have missed it. And if quibbles were kibbles, he’d be able to feed his dog for a month. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/26 "2011-11-28T06:01:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Oh, is that how the debate is supposed to go? Intriguing. > > Your prediction appears entirely consistent with global _ **cooling.** _ You refer to this prediction as “global warming,” which is simply dishonest. Supply a falsifiable prediction that requires warming, or shut up; it’s just dishonest to avoid the issue. I predict that you will only continue with the stupid points, Nowhere I said that it is cooling, but BEST, independent statisticians and climate researchers and even \*\*skeptics \*\*report that it is still warming. And for this discussion, the context is the past and current temperature records (the point of climategate) and not future predictions, It is dishonest in the extreme to avoid them in your way to continue to make an stupid point not related to the current issue. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/27 "2011-11-28T06:03:42Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > …is about as attractive as a simile with no comparison… Let a simile be, like, your umbrella. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/28 "2011-11-28T06:27:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And for this discussion, the context is the past and current temperature records (the point of climategate) and not future predictions Since either warming or cooling in the future would be entirely consistent with your predictions, what difference does it make whether cooling or warming shows up in the past? If neither change would falsify the “global warming” claims, why _ **bother** _ citing past data either way now? Surely it’s as irrelevant today as future data about warming or cooling will be in years to come? Your definition of “global warming” is equally problematic whether reviewing the past or going forward: it _ **isn’t** _ confirmed by warming if it _ **wouldn’t** _ be falsified by cooling – in either this context or the other one. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/29 "2011-11-28T06:30:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Hey, you’re the OP; if you want to declare that a different debate, it’d be your call all the way – but once you add that said debate is more or less over, I can’t help but ask _ **what** _ is “more or less over”: what is being predicted with rock-solid assurance, such that an unexpected result to the contrary would surprisingly falsify it? Is it a global amount of warming, or – as I’ve seen GIGO state quite recently – is it some other sort of climate change which may or may not involve warming? I believe the figure was something like 97% of climatologists following the current theories? That’s pretty fucking conclusive, especially when you remember that both various religious groups and many large industries have a very serious stake in the opposite result being true – hell, Koch industries’ own study concluded it to be accurate! When over 95% of the scientists working on an issue believe that the overlying theory is correct/accurate, that’s a sign that whoever is denying it has to either step their game up and start convincing people or step their credentials down. When you, a person who is not an active climatologist, bring forward your complaints, ask yourself the following: “why didn’t those guys, the ones _actually working on the problem_, think of this?” But as said, this isn’t the place for it. I’ve seen you and GIGO go at it in three different threads; I welcome you to make your own in regards to it. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/30 "2011-11-28T06:38:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Since either warming or cooling in the future would be entirely consistent with your predictions, what difference does it make whether cooling or warming shows up in the past? > > If neither change would falsify the “global warming” claims, why _ **bother** _ citing past data either way now? Surely it’s as irrelevant today as future data about warming or cooling will be in years to come? You are not doing the moronic point that many deniers do of saying that “therefore there can not be snow storms in the future?” > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Your definition of “global warming” is equally problematic whether reviewing the past or going forward: it _ **isn’t** _ confirmed by warming if it _ **wouldn’t** _ be falsified by cooling – in either this context or the other one. Of course this point is still stupid as it is not what we are dealing with and it is missing what I agree with, and that is that I agree with what researchers did find so far, the earth is warming and humans are causing most of the recent warming increase. > **[RealClimate: Berkeley earthquake called off](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/)** > > RealClimate: Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic... > [@](#): > > The basic fact of warming is supported by a huge array of complementary data (ocean warming, ice melting, phenology etc). And shouldn’t it have helped reduce the element of surprise that a National Academy of Sciences study already concluded that the warming seen in the surface station record was “undoubtedly real,” that Menne et al showed that highly touted station siting issues did not in fact compromise the record, that the satellite record agrees with the surface record in every important respect (see Fig. 7 here), and that numerous independent studies (many of them by amateurs) also confirmed the warming trend? > > If the Berkeley results are newsworthy, it is only because Muller had been perceived as an outsider (driven in part by trash-talking about other scientists), and has taken money from the infamous Koch brothers. People acting against expectation (“Man bites dog”) is always better news than the converse, something that Muller’s PR effort has exploited to the max. It does take some integrity to admit getting the same answer as those they had criticized, despite their preconceptions and the preconceptions of their funders. And we are pleased to see Muller’s statement that **“This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.”** It’s far from the overdue apology that Phil Jones (of CRU) deserves from his critics, but it’s a start. Incidentally, going back to the subject, one of the main reasons why Muller organized BEST was to check and verify if the scientists involved in the Climategate “scandal” were altering the data and doing things like “hiding the decline” (aka: the cooling) the answer was “NO”. ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/31 "2011-11-28T06:50:24Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You are not doing the moronic point that many deniers do of saying that “therefore there can not be snow storms in the future?” Of course not; I know full well that increased snow storms are consistent with your predictions. Also, decreased ones. Warming is also consistent with your predictions. Cooling is as well. That’s my point: > [@](#): > > Incidentally, going back to the subject, one of the main reasons why Muller organized BEST was to check and verify if the scientists involved in the Climategate “scandal” where altering the data and doing things like “hiding the decline” (aka: the cooling) the answer was “NO”. Again, why is that relevant? A future decline would be entirely consistent with your predictions; why, then, would a past decline be a problem? If it doesn’t make a difference for falsifiability whether the globe gets warmer or cooler from here on out, then why should it make a difference whether it got warmer or cooler up until now? ---
**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 28, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/32 "2011-11-28T06:58:34Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > When over 95% of the scientists working on an issue believe that the overlying theory is correct/accurate, that’s a sign that whoever is denying it has to either step their game up and start convincing people or step their credentials down. You seem to think I dispute the predictions. I’m not aware of having done so; I agree, for example, with GIGO’s current prediction, and don’t expect it to be falsified any time soon – and I merely note that said prediction is entirely consistent with cooling as well as with warming. Supply a different prediction and possbily I _ **would** _ deny it, at which point I’d possibly need to step my game up; until then, I’m in mere agreement. ---
**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 28, 2011, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/33 "2011-11-28T07:07:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Of course not; I know full well that increased snow storms are consistent with your predictions. Also, decreased ones. Warming is also consistent with your predictions. Cooling is as well. That’s my point: > > Again, why is that relevant? A future decline would be entirely consistent with your predictions; why, then, would a past decline be a problem? If it doesn’t make a difference for falsifiability whether the globe gets warmer or cooler from here on out, then why should it make a difference whether it got warmer or cooler up until now? As Feynman would say, just another 10:20:30 point. > **[Does cold weather disprove global warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm)** > > \Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global... > [@](#): > > Since the mid 1970s, global temperatures have been warming at around 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. However, weather imposes its own dramatic ups and downs over the long term trend. We expect to see record cold temperatures even during global warming. Nevertheless over the last decade, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows. This tendency towards hotter days is expected to increase as global warming continues into the 21st Century. > **[Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1](https://skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html)** > > One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate 'skeptics' is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.  In fact, 'it hasn't warmed since 1998' is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and 'it's cooling' is fifth. > [@](#): > > One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal. In fact, “it hasn’t warmed since 1998” is ninth on the list of most-used climate myths, and “it’s cooling” is fifth. > > This myth stems from a lack of understanding of exactly what global warming is. The term refers to the long-term warming of the global climate, usually measured over a timescale of about 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. This is because global warming is caused by a global energy imbalance - something causing the Earth to retain more heat, such as an increase in solar radiation reaching the surface, or an increased greenhouse effect. > > There are also a number of effects which can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation or the 11-year solar cycle. Sometimes these dampen global warming, and sometimes they amplify it. However, they’re called “oscillations” and “cycles” for a reason - they alternate between positive and negative states and don’t have long-term effects on the Earth’s temperature. > > Right now we’re in the midst of a period where most short-term effects are acting in the cooling direction, dampening global warming. Many climate “skeptics” are trying to capitalize on this dampening, trying to argue that this time global warming has stopped, even though it didn’t stop after the global warming “pauses” in 1973 to 1980, 1980 to 1988, 1988 to 1995, 1995 to 2001, or 1998 to 2005 (Figure 1). > [@](#): > > When constantly confronted with this myth that global warming stopped in 1998, or 2000, or 2002, or 2005, or [insert year], we wonder why distinguishing between short-term noise and long-term signal is such a difficult concept for climate “skeptics.” They remind us of the Penrose stairs made famous by M.C. Escher - a staircase which people can descend forever and not get any lower. This paradoxical perception of an impossible construction seems to be how climate “skeptics” view the world, which is undoubtedly why they’re willing to risk our future on the hopes that 97% of climate scientists are wrong about climate science. As I also mention many times, for some reason you think that getting me to give a different assessment or a different view that is not close to what researchers found before is very, very, very important, but the only reason I see so far is that you do it to avoid dealing with the cites, as the independent statisticians that looked at the data before BEST confirmed that the “climategate” scientists did not lie to us, only dishonest people are still insisting that there is no warming going on. ---
**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 28, 2011, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/34 "2011-11-28T07:30:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As Feynman would say, just another 10:20:30 point. I’m not supplying a 10:20:30 point; I’m asking why, given _ **your** _ criteria for going forward, the past data would be relevant either way. > [@](#): > > As I also mention many times, for some reason you think that getting me to give a different assessment or a different view that is not close to what researchers found before is very, very, very important No, I’d be equally delighted if you gave the same assessment or view as the researchers. Were this a discussion about data yet to come in, I’d love for you to relay their prediction, and yours, and note whether they’re the same; it makes no difference to me whether they’re the same. As this is a discussion about past data, you can by all means spell out your answer, and theirs, and note whether they’re the same; it makes no difference to me whether they’re the same. It’s simply that you’re here to answer questions and they’re not. And since you’ve made clear that either warming or cooling would be consistent with your prediction going forward, I’m asking you why it matters whether cooling or warming got noted on the way here. If your answer happens to be the same as theirs, I am as ever delighted; if not, I’m delighted nonetheless. > [@](#): > > only dishonest people are still insisting that there is no warming going on. Am I insisting on that? I’m merely noting that neither warming nor cooling would be consistent with your predictions going forward, such that I can’t see the relevance of warming or cooling up until the present: neither a decline nor an increase would falsify your claims about the future, so why should a past increase or decline have any bearing on claims at present? ---
**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 28, 2011, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/35 "2011-11-28T07:37:36Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Am I insisting on that? I’m merely noting that neither warming nor cooling would be consistent with your predictions going forward, such that I can’t see the relevance of warming or cooling up until the present: neither a decline nor an increase would falsify your claims about the future, so why should a past increase or decline have any bearing on claims at present? Don’t think for a moment that your trolling is not being noticed. Even a 5th grader can see that your goal is to paint all this as unscientific; well, it is idiotic too by you thinking that it makes a point. Deal with the cites or show forever that you are not even capable of understanding what they say, and that you are doing so on purpose. > **[The Big Picture](https://skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html)** > > As part of our Rebuttal Update Project, this version of The Big Picture article has been updated with more current data in February 2024. You can access the previous version here.Note: clicking on the images will open a larger version in a separate... > [@](#): > > Sometimes people ask “what would it take to falsify the man-made global warming theory?”. Well, basically it would require that our fundamental understanding of physics be wrong, because that’s what the theory is based on. This fundamental physics has been scrutinized through scientific experiments for decades to centuries. > **[How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm)** > > \An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2.... ---
**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 28, 2011, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/36 "2011-11-28T07:52:59Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t think for a moment that your trolling is not being noticed. > > Even a 5th grader can see that your goal is to paint all this as unscientific, well, it is idiotic too. But I grant that your predictions going forward _ **aren’t** _ unscientific; they admit of hypothetical falsification! I merely note that neither a rise nor a decline in temperature would so falsify them; either result is consistent with your predictions. I thus treat the existing data in the same way: whether it reflects a decline or a rise is presumably irrelevant; either result would be consistent with your claims going forward, such that either result would have been consistent with significantly similar claims in the past. (Possibly a mere decline would have sufficed to falsify it then, but would no longer do so now? If so, specify that it’s not a case of “significantly similar” and I’ll gladly drop the point. But if a past rise or decline is as irrelevant as the impending rise or decline, then what’s the fuss?) > [@](#): > > Deal with the cites or show forever the you are not even capable of understanding what they say, and that you are doing so on purpose. In the future, the temperature will either rise or decline; either would be entirely consistent with your predictions, and to that extent will be irrelevant. In the past, the temperature either rose or declined; a cite to _ **either** _ effect seems equally irrelevant at present, to the same extent and for the same reason. ---
**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 28, 2011, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/37 "2011-11-28T07:57:20Z")
[meh, he just repeats his trolling and attempts to explain it as being reasonable, whatever] Getting back to the subject, Peter Hadfield (potholer54) talks about the “scandal” and how even after 2 years the “bloody salesman” is still peddling the conspiracy. [http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/on\_the\_trick\_to\_hide\_the\_conte.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/on_the_trick_to_hide_the_conte.php) And he also takes on the Daily Mail for being so gullible. Ok. Far from gullible, when Hadfiel and others can find the complete emails and context this “failure” of the Daily Mail does not look like a failure but more like willful deception. ---
**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 28, 2011, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/38 "2011-11-28T08:04:33Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > In the future, the temperature will either rise or decline; either would be entirely consistent with your predictions, and to that extent will be irrelevant. In the past, the temperature either rose or declined; a cite to _ **either** _ effect seems equally irrelevant at present, to the same extent and for the same reason. And just to be clear, that does not deal with the cite at all. As \*\*Budget Player Cadet \*\*mentions, continue with your [del]trolling[/del] somewhere else. ---
**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 28, 2011, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/39 "2011-11-28T08:21:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In the future, the temperature will either rise or decline; either would be entirely consistent with your predictions, and to that extent will be irrelevant. In the past, the temperature either rose or declined; a cite to either effect seems equally irrelevant at present, to the same extent and for the same reason. > > And just to be clear, that does not deal with the cite at all. Just to be clear: as either a decline or a rise would be consistent with your claims about the future, neither hypothetical cite will be relevant _ **then;** _ if either a decline or a rise would likewise have been consistent with similar claims in years past, then no such cite is relevant _ **now.** _ ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2011, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/40 "2011-11-28T08:23:35Z")
Where the hell does GIGO predict that temperatures might decline? I have never heard any scientist claim that. I’ve heard them say they might decline over a shortterm period due to other factors, but never that the overall trend would not be warming. And, if he has, why the hell are you jumping on him when he clearly disagrees with everyone else, and thus can safely be ignored? Why pick on the guy who everyone else would claim is wrong, anyways? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243.md?page=3)