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.
Of course that was a reply to his religion accusation, but why should I complain when he is digging even deeper into his hole?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Yeah… Seems to me a little less like “withholding data” and a lot more like “not spoon-feeding people trying to attack him”.
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?
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 having confirmed that the science involved was correct.
You know, this is actually pretty funny. Look down just a liiiiittle bit:
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.
Not in that interview… The subject was not brought up again.
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:
- The other person involved is incorrigibly insane/stupid
- One of us has been conclusively proven wrong and nobody is offering counterevidence
Call me naive…
Boy, some of you people are really heartless. Did you ever stop to think that maybe this is all a cry for help?
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.
History shows that that is not true at all; that is, the whole history, stop cherry picking just the recent one.
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?
I don’t usually quote an entire response, but I tend to agree with everything you said.
Huh? The one what?
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.
The quote problem above is confusing me. Who said what?
Never mind, I looked at the post quoted and figured it out.
MORE projection and hypocrisy? Don’t you ever get tired of the same old bullshit?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Start here. 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.