If you keep bringing up the emails, (you know, the subject of the topic), it will drive them crazy, and it’s educational. They want you to get into a personal grudge match with them.
But then, the trolls win if you do that.
So if someone answers a question by making a flat claim, but later insists it was never his official position, we should dismiss him because he’s not truthful?
Ah yes another FOX viewer that just sees the line “were is global warming?” from a typical news report from them uh?
There is weapons grade idiocy here, but suffice to say, he is ignoring the fact that weather is not climate and not all regions the earth have the same climate.
Global warming is like an enhanced tide that is growing constantly, enhancing the effects of the system, and what is clear is that winters are not going away, it just means that the energy and matter added to the system (more water vapor on some northern regions and then just more warming on places of the south west) has to fall somewhere.
To begin to show who is really just swallowing the FOX garbage or from the other usual sources, I would like to see how they could explain the fact that the colder years that a La Nina cycle brings are getting warmer every decade after the 70s in comparison to the previews ones.
Getting back to th Forbes clusterfuck of denial…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2011/11/28/climategate-2-0-more-like-climatefluff-3-12/4/
There you have it. The words " there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC" don’t actually mean what you think they do.
These aren’t the droids you are looking for.
Well, will you dismiss a parent for agreeing with a demanding child after several days of badgering?
Over here you are demanding that even after explaining you will still keep pressing the moot 70s point, as everyone could tell you, you are not fooling anyone, you are still being a coward for not dealing with the evidence, as the La Nina evidence shows, even the cold years that are part of a cycle are getting warmer, the scientists that explain that warming is still going can not be dismissed, and so it is that your childish attempts at making a point are limited to dismissing a poster on the internet and cowardly avoid explaining the evidence.
Now you are descending to the level of a troll, by making it personal. That’s what a troll wants you to do.
Then you will ignore the emails.
If he gives a false answer to someone else entirely, I probably would.
I’m not pressing the '70s point; I’m not disputing your current claim that it was never your official position. I merely ask whether some guy A who makes a false claim to some guy B – later giving the excuse that it was because of some guy C – is to be dismissed on the exact terms you just named.
(It’s twice as striking given that I’m blissfully happy with your current specified test, which suggests you wouldn’t have needed to create a false claim to satisfy me; as the one you’re currently endorsing would have sufficed, there was no need for you to make up a lie when replying to Bricker.)
How is it cowardly? I don’t believe I’m denying the evidence in question, and so don’t need to explain it away – and if I catch anyone else doing something untruthful, I’d be just as happy to apply your ‘take them to task, to be truthful or else they will be dismissed’ instructions.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Now you are descending to the level of a troll, by making it personal. That’s what a troll wants you to do.
[/QUOTE]
You may have a point.
AFAIK they are referring to the early IPCC reconstruction graph, indeed it has been found to be lacking in accuracy, hence the new ones, unfortunately they showed that things like the medieval warming period were not as big as the old ones showed and so this can once again be explained as scientists continue to demand that others scientists do better, and as time has showed (except for the ones that ignore the time lines, it is really a syndrome on some as FX shows) they do better science as a result.
Of course to make guys like FXMastermind look even more moronic: a recent report that claims that we have some breathing room and that the temperatures will be mostly on the low end of the predictions (still bad but not as bad as it could be) is based on the sensibility deduced from the latest hockey stick paleo reconstructions, but you go ahead and continue to seed doubt on those ones, it would mean that the high end of the predictions of what would take place with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere are more likely then.
Good then another “100 ways to make a moot point” debater. As mentioned many times, it is not me who you need to counter, otherwise you are indeed admitting that you concede what the scientists and the cites say, you have the freedom of ignoring me, but the scientists and the facts show that the earth is still warming and that we have something to do with it.
[quote=“ralph124c(edited), post:275, topic:604243”]
It seems that the climate change industry has a slight credibility problem.
All kidding aside, ALL computer models work the same-they take data inputs, and deliver an output that is (hopefully) reflective of reality.
Now, we have a problem-the much feared “hockey stick” temperature rise[li] is not happening[]. So the high priests of the AGW church/cult decide to “massage” the inputs[], until the “desired” output is achieved[*]. Nothing wrong with that, but this is NOT the “scientific method”.[/li]So we have a problem-unless the people/dupes can be convinced that disaster is at hand, funding[li] for the Church of AGW[**] is threatened-we cannot have that?[/li]So, back to the model-and a little tweaking, and we get the desired result.
Now, I submit that, should the next decade show (continued) cooling, we will have the same malarky-just some more tweaking of the inputs[li].[/li][/quote]
[li] = citation needed. [/li][**] = Nutbag alarm.
In the case of FX, the emails that show this are what I’m asking for. Nothing more, nothing less. Decontextualized paraphrasing makes a case in the same way that, say, calling your opponent a retard does – fallaciously and stupidly. I don’t doubt that you will be able to provide which emails you’re talking about, or at least some selection, and I think this will be very revealing, be it for me or for you when GIGO or I explain the context. It is thoroughly possible that I’m wrong… But again; what are you trying to prove? That global warming is a manufactured issue, or that the people at the research center did not handle it well?
You, Ralph, leave me puzzled. You spouted a bunch of rather extreme stuff, offered absolutely no sourcing and then included at least one thing that is so ridiculously ass-backwards that I just sat for a moment, staring at my computer screen, overwhelmed by the sheer severity of its backwardness. So I’m going to address that point, but to the rest… Well, the asterisks mean something. But the point that really struck me dumb was this:
“Church of AGW”? “Funding”? Yes, Gore has made a fair amount of money pushing this. Yes, green business has some money in it. I’m not going to deny that. But you know what?
Exxon Mobil has a GDP of slightly below Denmark and slightly above Poland. Shell is nestled between Portugal and Venezuela. BP is just a tick below Ireland. E.On (a british energy company) is just below New Zealand. Koch Industries was 4th on the Forbes 400 recently. Hmm… seems like the real money is over here. I’m kinda wondering where big coal is, but you get the point.
Keep in mind that these are corporations that are edging out entire countries in regards to the amount of money they make each year. Even better, not a single “green” energy company makes that list. Yes, clearly the smart money for scientists studying the climate is to publish results that actively threaten the role of the 26th-largest GDP in the world, rather than play for the other team.
Or do you specifically mean the fanatic devotion? This is partially a misunderstanding of what’s going on, and partially part of an incredibly well-financed smear campaign (remember: these people and their research are a real threat to the ability of huge oil companies to function). As for the former, let’s get something straight. Accusing a scientist of forging/massaging data is akin to accusing a teacher of sleeping with one of his/her students. Even if what they did was legal, that person will never work in academia again– it’s so incredibly antithetical to the principles of their field that it’s only reasonable for them, when falsely accused, to respond angrily. I mean, accuse a trucker of skimming from his goods or smuggling drugs with his cargo, and you’d be lucky if he didn’t smash your face in.
But even then, there is actually very little fanaticism, even when defending the platform that their major work is built on. They’re scientists convinced of their data and analysis, not religious idiots whose dogma is untouchable. Prove them wrong, and they will change their minds. That’s how science works. Unfortunately, nobody has proven them wrong. Even a major study by Koch Industries (which is trying very, very hard to squash this issue) came out with a grand slam conclusion that Michael Mann’s work was completely correct. Fancy that – scientists previously convinced that global warming wasn’t real are paid money to help disprove it, and in the course of their studies, they prove it right and admit to it.
So yeah… As for the rest of that shithole of a post, I’m just say: Citation needed, motherfucker.
[quote]
Bonus point: AGW not only “explains” hot summers, it also “explains”
-reduced hurricane activity in the Western Atlantic-colder than normal winters-heavier than normal rainfall
-drought in the American SW
-colder winters in England-warmer winters in England[/QUOTE]
Yeah… So?
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere could very well explain any number of these things (although I’m left wondering where you’re getting your sources for a few of these things that it “explains”). Increased rainfall in places that traditionally get a lot of rain and less rain in places that are often threatened by drought are not contradictory items; in fact, they both fit perfectly together if you understand the science behind it.
I’m also kinda wondering if you’re not conflating climatology with global warming in general… Rising CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increased greenhouse effect, and possibly other, unknown consequences. This leads to an overall trend of warming. This does not demand that you ignore other climatological factors (for example, one major recent volcanic eruption – IIRC, Pintabo in '91 – which, as the climate scientists correctly predicted, led into several very cold years due to ash, sulfates, and the like in the atmosphere blocking the sun’s rays). It simply points to an overall trend, assuming that nothing major steps in.
The scientists have made predictions about future warming, and I’ll be watching to see whether those facts come to pass; AFAICT, the cites up until the present are merely that it was warming for a while, and then stopped warming for the better part of two decades and counting, which isn’t enough to falsify the theory until and unless it keeps on that way for a while longer, all of which I concede readily.
Moot debating 101 once again, do you have anything to add to the climategate issue?
I’ll continue to read each post, weighing in whenever someone makes a claim I have a question about or poses a question I can answer. (What an odd thing to ask.)
I was answering elucidator’s post. If someone gets paid to do research by a company or organization that will benefit from the positive results of that research then the results should be given a bit more scrutiny than someone working independently.
The reason governments aren’t running out and spending money on AGW alleviation, is because they don’t have enough money to pay for bridge repairs, health care, and all the other assorted things that their voters care about right now, let alone stuff that may happen in the future. So, the best response is, “I question the science, so I’m waiting on consensus before I allocate funds. Oh, btw, see the shiny new bridge?! Well, it is just a dab of paint, but still ‘Shiny’!”
To answer the latter portion of that paragraph, AGW is not a topic of which I care much about because little if anything can or will be done about it at this stage. Someone has to find a way to replace fossil fuels in a way that doesn’t destroy our economies or our lifestyles. It won’t be done by setting up big windmills all over the place.
It could be done by a government that rather than spending money on sending people to the other side of the world to remove dictators that are replaced by worse, they spent that money on a vision, say like the equivalent to going to the moon, to get fusion working, or some similar grand goal that only Americans seem to be good at when they get their shit together. Think what could have been accomplished if the money was spent on that?
Only that that was not the point, I was referring to the current state of affairs, knowing **who **is making the big lie **now **it is very important to demand our sources of information to get it right so as to avoid continued inaction and then harebrained ideas to be implemented in desperation (like adding sulfur to the atmosphere as reported on last week’s Straight Dope column) if nothing is done on the next decades.
As even Lomborg proposes now, a carbon tax is an important part of the solution so then we should have enough money to deploy and develop new technology all over the world and motivate industry to change even more. Because one thing is more certain now, we are for all intents and purposes subsidizing fossil fuels now by not giving to them the real cost that we will have to pay for their use.
See, there is the dispute. What is the real cost? And do you factor in the benefits of having relatively cheap transportation?
Hey, we could all go back to spending our lives never travelling 10 miles away from where we were born, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t like it. Or give up getting reasonably priced fresh fruit and vegetables delivered in the middle of winter.
Yeah, lets just tax the oil companies. They won’t pass it along to their consumers, who won’t pass it along to us. Like hell they won’t.
And would such a tax cause the economy to contract ending up with less total money to spend on things like research that could come up with a long term solution?
And again, I emphasize that, while that is true, its not the point. Its about obtaining research funds. Like a politician worries about being elected, a research scientist worries about attracting funding. Can’t build a cyclotron out of Leggos.
Say the guys at the Oink Foundation, funded almost entirelly by the Fossil Fuel Appreciation Society, generously supported by the WeSaySo Corp recieves a couple of researh grant proposals. Not being rocket surgeons, they contact rocket surgeions for their opinion. Well, they say, both of these projects are interesting, etc.
They report that if Dr. A’s effort is sucessful, it will prove that carbon emissions raise the average IQ and discourage free radicals and eczema. Dr. B would like to research an effort to improve wind power turbines. Their grant requests are more or less equal in size.
Which is more likely to be funded? The one with the big boobs.
Well, duh!
It’s like the ignorance is breeding! I think we may have lost the fight!
Like if this issue was not being investigated also:
This goes back to the very old fashion point of being penny wise and pound foolish, right now the propaganda ideas of some sources are betting that we will be penny wise for a long time.
So solutions like cap-n-trade and a carbon tax will be implemented, but more restrictions will come for private industry if they do not heed the warnings, as a scientist that was invited to the latest skeptical fest by the Heartland Institute said, the big problem now is that many conservatives are doing a very coward thing.
[This was presented as slides on a power point presentation:]