# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 363
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243/363 "2011-12-13T20:22:43Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Fair enough. But don’t expect me to spend a lot of time slogging through the denialist literature, like you wouldn’t expect an evolutionary scientist to spend much time slogging through the Intelligent Design literature. You don’t even understand what your own side is saying, let alone what the other side is saying. Anyway, I have spent hours and hours reading articles, blog posts, and IPCC reports on the warmist side of the debate. Because I actually care about learning the truth. Anyway, you have not answered my question. I asked if it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming controversy but does not even know that water vapor feedback is at the core of the controversy? You evaded that question by asserting that there is not a controversy. I disagree, but I will rephrase the question: Do you think it’s a problem if somebody has a strong opinion about the global warming hypothesis but does not even know what the core components of that hypothesis are? > [@](#): > > Says the guy who has GIGObuster on ignore. :shrug: GIGOBuster repeatedly refused to answer a simple, reasonable question about his position. If Warren Meyer had done the same thing to you, you would be justified in refusing to engage with him any more. > [@](#): > > Look, when I go to research _science_, I go to the scientists. I go look up the _research_. I look into the _peer-reviewed studies_. Do you look at all of them? Or are you selective? If you are selective, how do you choose them? And do scrutinize them for logical flaws? How do you make sure that you are fairly considering the arguments against your position? > [@](#): > > Well… There’s [this “Nature” article](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v349/n6309/abs/349500a0.html) (and for those who aren’t paying attention, “Nature” is _kind of a big deal_ as far as natural science publications go), but I admit that’s not quite fair because you need a subscription to the magazine or to pay out the nose. But hey, what’s this? Is that from… _1991_?! > Then there’s the [Held and Soden](http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf) paper from 2000, which says, quote: I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you denying that none of the computer simulations have been validated by making interesting, accurate, bona fide, consistent predictions? > [@](#): > > What? It doesn’t matter at all that your view is essentially a fringe view within the scientific community? That most of the scientists working on it disagree with you? First things first: What exactly is my “view,” according to you? And where is your proof that most of the scientists working on the question disagree with me? > [@](#): > > Then about 6 individual research teams went over it and found neither bias nor flaw in his methodology or results I’m extremely skeptical of this especially given that Jones has published a lot of papers. Can you quote, cite, and link the relevant language? > [@](#): > > In response to that, he shoots back, “so you think shoplifting is okay, then?” My response: Shoplifting is absolutely wrong. Ok, now please answer my question: > [@](#): > > Fifth, do you agree that another warmist researcher who defends Jones probably believes that Jones’ tactics are okay? And please show me where Michael Mann condemned Jones’ conduct just as I condemned shoftlifting. > [@](#): > > So you’re not even going to try to prove your point? You’re just going to ignore the results of 6 studies, and claim that you have “reasonable suspicion”? Umm, I have no idea what your point is here. Are you claiming that any of these 6 studies contradict my point? If so, please QUOTE the relevant language from the studies. > [@](#): > > When you claim that the research is biased, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this is true. My claim is that the research is suspect. I did give an example of bias however. So I’m not sure what more you want from me. > [@](#): > > Got a link to what you’re talking about? I’m having trouble finding it… It’s discussed in the article I linked which you refused to read. Chapter 4, just do a word search for the word “Briffa.” By the way, it appears you have not answered my questions from before: (1) Do you agree that according to Michael Mann, recent temperatures represent a thousand-year high? (2) Do you agree that the Berkeley paper you cite does not go back anywhere near that far? These are very simple questions. I apologize if you answered them and I missed your answers. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climategate-2-0-are-you-fucking-kidding-me/604243)._