Climategate
12-07-2009, 07:38 AM
#61
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
There is a difference between a 'skeptic' and a 'rational skeptic.' I'm afraid there is a great shortage of 'rational' on this thread.
YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
YouTube - Climategate meets Arseholegate.mov
"Fox News" needs to be supplemented with actual fact based news.
YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
YouTube - Climategate meets Arseholegate.mov
"Fox News" needs to be supplemented with actual fact based news.
12-07-2009, 08:02 AM
#62
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
I take exception to that
Originally Posted by jcaplins
There is a difference between a 'skeptic' and a 'rational skeptic.' I'm afraid there is a great shortage of 'rational' on this thread.
YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
YouTube - Climategate meets Arseholegate.mov
"Fox News" needs to be supplemented with actual fact based news.
YouTube - 6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails
YouTube - Climategate meets Arseholegate.mov
"Fox News" needs to be supplemented with actual fact based news.
WW
12-07-2009, 10:45 AM
#63
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
What have I posted here that was irrational?
WW
WW
Sorry, I should have clarified that my post was not directed at you (the OP).
I will also add there is no new "revelation". Scientist bicker about details of a particular topic all the time.
(and why is no one talking about the criminals hacking into private e-mail accounts?)
12-08-2009, 02:36 AM
#64
Libertarian Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by jcaplins
Sorry, I should have clarified that my post was not directed at you (the OP).
I will also add there is no new "revelation". Scientist bicker about details of a particular topic all the time.
(and why is no one talking about the criminals hacking into private e-mail accounts?)
I will also add there is no new "revelation". Scientist bicker about details of a particular topic all the time.
(and why is no one talking about the criminals hacking into private e-mail accounts?)
Your point about scientists bickering is essential. The CRU, and many other establishment climate research institutions, produce conclusions that support their theories. They refuse to provide (to the bickerers) the raw data or the processes that led to their conclusions. If the math and science are bulletproof, put it out there and we will buy it.
Your other point about the hacking (or inside job) is well made, but beside the point. Does the fact that this data was obtained illegally affect whether or not it is true?
WW
12-08-2009, 05:22 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
Fair enough.
Your point about scientists bickering is essential. The CRU, and many other establishment climate research institutions, produce conclusions that support their theories. They refuse to provide (to the bickerers) the raw data or the processes that led to their conclusions. If the math and science are bulletproof, put it out there and we will buy it.
Your other point about the hacking (or inside job) is well made, but beside the point. Does the fact that this data was obtained illegally affect whether or not it is true?
WW
Your point about scientists bickering is essential. The CRU, and many other establishment climate research institutions, produce conclusions that support their theories. They refuse to provide (to the bickerers) the raw data or the processes that led to their conclusions. If the math and science are bulletproof, put it out there and we will buy it.
Your other point about the hacking (or inside job) is well made, but beside the point. Does the fact that this data was obtained illegally affect whether or not it is true?
WW
Perhaps I missed something, Is the data really being withheld?
All reputable scientific papers and journals will be complete with all sources for their data. Follow the trail of sources and you should have your data. I'm not going to look for it, I have better things to do. If some joe smo asked me to provide all the data, I'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and follow the trail of references themselves.
Hacking the e-mail will not in itself make anything more or less true, but it was obvious in this case that the info was quote mined and taken out of context to "prove" an already held opinion. It also speaks volumes about the credibility of those that would steal the info or those that willingly use the stolen info without regard to the law.
An illegal search of my house for a murder weapon will guarantee that that murder weapon will be inadmissible in court.
Kinda went astray of the original question, ehh? To answer: I havn't changed my mind.
12-08-2009, 06:08 AM
#66
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Baron B-55 Left Seat
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by jcaplins
Perhaps I missed something, Is the data really being withheld?
All reputable scientific papers and journals will be complete with all sources for their data. Follow the trail of sources and you should have your data. I'm not going to look for it, I have better things to do. If some joe smo asked me to provide all the data, I'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and follow the trail of references themselves.
Hacking the e-mail will not in itself make anything more or less true, but it was obvious in this case that the info was quote mined and taken out of context to "prove" an already held opinion. It also speaks volumes about the credibility of those that would steal the info or those that willingly use the stolen info without regard to the law.
An illegal search of my house for a murder weapon will guarantee that that murder weapon will be inadmissible in court.
Kinda went astray of the original question, ehh? To answer: I havn't changed my mind.
All reputable scientific papers and journals will be complete with all sources for their data. Follow the trail of sources and you should have your data. I'm not going to look for it, I have better things to do. If some joe smo asked me to provide all the data, I'd tell 'em to go pound sand, and follow the trail of references themselves.
Hacking the e-mail will not in itself make anything more or less true, but it was obvious in this case that the info was quote mined and taken out of context to "prove" an already held opinion. It also speaks volumes about the credibility of those that would steal the info or those that willingly use the stolen info without regard to the law.
An illegal search of my house for a murder weapon will guarantee that that murder weapon will be inadmissible in court.
Kinda went astray of the original question, ehh? To answer: I havn't changed my mind.
Hacking the emails was completely the wrong thing moraly and leagaly to do... However, this shows just what guys like myself have thought all along. Climate Change is just another ploy to make money.
Throughout the years since "Global Warming" was thought up, Scientists who supported the THEORY ( i do want to point out its a theory) have always been asked simple questions that to my knowledge have yet to be answered.
Like:
Why are the other planets heating at the same rate?
How can you pin the ammount of C02 In the air to humans when a single erruption from Mt. Vesuvious releases enough CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere that is equal to the last 100 years of "man's" pollution?
Our plantet thrives off of CO2...since when is CO2 a bad thing? The plants use this to create oxygen....
Hasnt records indicated a "warming trend" on earth every so many years?..
Most of these questions all have the same answer... A warming trend.
Which is convieniantly backed up by some of NASA's best climate
scientists as well as the NOAA. Im sorry but you will have to excuse me if i take the side that makes more sense and makes less money on the subject... Global warming is a fraud and even if it wasnt they are crazy to think we could fix it.
Edit:
I almost forgot to mention that it does not help when global warming's poster boy Al Gore drives SUVs and his house uses more energy than about 8 average family homes... This doesnt help his cause or his credibility.
12-08-2009, 06:39 AM
#67
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by asims33
Throughout the years since "Global Warming" was thought up, Scientists who supported the THEORY ( i do want to point out its a theory) have always been asked simple questions that to my knowledge have yet to be answered.
Gravity is just a THEORY.
12-08-2009, 07:11 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by jcaplins
Gravity is just a THEORY.
But do either require world governments to fundamentally restructure their economies at the expense of the financial well being of at least a generation of millions of their citizens?
True science rarely requires immediate action unsubstantiated by decades of research (decades ago it was Global Cooling)...this is the source of the skepticism, not conspiracy theorists in their Montana cabin.
12-09-2009, 06:15 AM
#69
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Baron B-55 Left Seat
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by jcaplins
Gravity is just a THEORY.
Yeah, dont understand what that had to do with my post at all though...?
Do i beleive in gravity?...absolutely Has it been proven? No... But there are virtually no arguments against it or any reasonable explination what else would effect us the same way...
Global Warming however is to easy to debunk.
12-09-2009, 07:01 AM
#70
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by asims33
Yeah, dont understand what that had to do with my post at all though...?
Do i beleive in gravity?...absolutely Has it been proven? No... But there are virtually no arguments against it or any reasonable explination what else would effect us the same way...
Global Warming however is to easy to debunk.
Do i beleive in gravity?...absolutely Has it been proven? No... But there are virtually no arguments against it or any reasonable explination what else would effect us the same way...
Global Warming however is to easy to debunk.
You misrepresented the definition of a scientific theory in your previous post. After that, all credibility is lost and I stop reading.
To spell out the logic... Gravity is a Scientific theory, repeatedly proved within the scientific laws. For It has yet to be disproved. This, for all intensive purposes is what we call a fact.
The global warming debate is not a Theory. It's a hypothesis, being studied and debated.
(dare I continue... no, must stop here ...)
Peace. I'm done.
