Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

climategateFollow

#27 Nov 25 2009 at 2:45 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Human caused climate change is a myth founded on the worst kind of junk science.
I'm sure you would know that of course, given your insight into the scientific community and breadth of knowledge of the sciences from your job selling people insurance.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#28 Nov 25 2009 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Meh.

Out of something like 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents (I don't know where the column author got his much smaller numbers), they came up with less than a half dozen quips in a 13 year period -- most of which are out of context (the 'travesty' remark is complaining about the lack of tracking in some regions and the need for a larger network), scientifically irrelevant ("that guy's a jerk") or frankly not that shocking. Yay?


So. If one out of a thousand emails you've sent over the last dozen years says "Hey Joe! I killed my boss and buried him in the back yard...", we should just ignore that as evidence that your missing boss might just have met foul play at your hands? That seems like an odd defense to me...


Another counterpoint is that most of the time, if you're faking scientific evidence to support a political ideology you're not going to write about it in an email. Occasionally, something might slip out. And that's what these emails show. An occasional slip where someone writes something about what they're doing which they shouldn't have, and which indicates that the scientific work they are doing is less than honest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Nov 25 2009 at 4:51 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
So. If one out of a thousand emails you've sent over the last dozen years says "Hey Joe! I killed my boss and buried him in the back yard...", we should just ignore that as evidence that your missing boss might just have met foul play at your hands? That seems like an odd defense to me...
Well, yes, if the other 999 say "Hey, Joe, my boss isn't dead!" That one could be defended as some kind of attempt to freak Joe the hell out.
#30 Nov 25 2009 at 5:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So. If one out of a thousand emails you've sent over the last dozen years says "Hey Joe! I killed my boss and buried him in the back yard...", we should just ignore that as evidence that your missing boss might just have met foul play at your hands? That seems like an odd defense to me...
Well, yes, if the other 999 say "Hey, Joe, my boss isn't dead!" That one could be defended as some kind of attempt to freak Joe the hell out.


Or that the other emails were the sender pretending not to know what happened to the boss, and the one was a slip where he revealed that he does. Or maybe the other 999 didn't speak specifically about the boss at all.


Let's switch this around. If one email out of a thousand sent by a CEO to the company accountant suggested that they were engaged in some kind of scheme to falsify the company financial records, you'd think that was damning enough to investigate, right? And certainly the fact that the other 999 didn't indicate anything fishy wouldn't hold up as a defense, would it?


Why would it in this case? I'm simply saying that that's a silly reason to ignore the emails.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Nov 25 2009 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,047 posts
Quote:
I have to admit, I'm torn on the global warming thing.


I've always been a starch supporter of global warming. I hate the cold. When some scientists have suggested that we're not actually experiencing global warming, I really start to worry. I live in the middle of the USA and have always been awaiting my beach front property.. and all the warmth along with it.
#32 Nov 25 2009 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Let's switch this around. If one email out of a thousand sent by a CEO to the company accountant suggested that they were engaged in some kind of scheme to falsify the company financial records, you'd think that was damning enough to investigate, right? And certainly the fact that the other 999 didn't indicate anything fishy wouldn't hold up as a defense, would it?
There's a difference between investigating, and saying that that one e-mail is proof that they are falsifying the records.

I have no problem with people investigating whether or not the analyses (that is the correct plural of "analysis", right?) of the existence of global warming have been falsified.

I do have a problem with the flat declaration that these e-mails are proof that they were falsified, because they aren't. (EDIT to add: Yes, I'm aware you're not making that statement. Varus is, which isn't surprising.)

Edited, Nov 25th 2009 3:09pm by MDenham
#33 Nov 25 2009 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Allegory wrote:
Professor AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
If people like varrus knew even the first thing about physics and thermodynamics, they'd know that it's impossible for our human activities not to have had an effect on the earth's atmosphere. All the heat and carbons must have gone somewhere.

The contention was never over whether there was an effect, but whether that effect was significant. We're not going to ban jump rope just because it shifts the earth's orbit.


I think there is a "your mom" joke somewhere in there.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#34 Nov 25 2009 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So. If one out of a thousand emails you've sent over the last dozen years says "Hey Joe! I killed my boss and buried him in the back yard...", we should just ignore that as evidence that your missing boss might just have met foul play at your hands? That seems like an odd defense to me...

Umm... what? Whether or not I killed my boss is a direct thing. Climate change science is based off of thousands of studies. If there's a thousand studies indicating that the death of bosses nationwide is caused by carnivorous boss-beetles and you find one e-mail saying I killed my boss, that wouldn't do much to dispute the death of bosses as a whole.

Quote:
Another counterpoint is that most of the time, if you're faking scientific evidence to support a political ideology you're not going to write about it in an email.

Wow, that's your vaunted logic workin' for you there? "You wouldn't prove you did it so we can assume you did it without proof"? Amazing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Nov 25 2009 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's switch this around. If one email out of a thousand sent by a CEO to the company accountant suggested that they were engaged in some kind of scheme to falsify the company financial records, you'd think that was damning enough to investigate, right? And certainly the fact that the other 999 didn't indicate anything fishy wouldn't hold up as a defense, would it?

Why would it in this case?

Tell me this was a joke and you're not really this dense. Please. I'm being serious here. Are you truly this vapid?

Tell me you're serious and I'll happily answer with the differences. But I need to hear it first.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Nov 25 2009 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
gbaji doesn't understand research.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#37 Nov 25 2009 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
Every day, gbaji makes me question the portion of respect I give conservatives. Every time he posts, he makes me question my memory. Have I ever met a half-intelligent conservative? Really? Every day, there's a little more doubt.
#38 Nov 25 2009 at 5:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Every day, gbaji makes me question the portion of respect I give conservatives. Every time he posts, he makes me question my memory. Have I ever met a half-intelligent conservative? Really? Every day, there's a little more doubt.
The funny thing is, they're probably fairly normal people when you're not talking politics/ideology. But the second you delve past normal social talk, you're confronted with the crazy.
#39 Nov 25 2009 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
Every day, gbaji makes me question the portion of respect I give conservatives. Every time he posts, he makes me question my memory. Have I ever met a half-intelligent conservative? Really? Every day, there's a little more doubt.


They are usually called RINOs for having any doubts about their party's doctrine which isn't really conservative as much as it is rightwing.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#40 Nov 25 2009 at 5:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Wow. Just wow.

Evidence arises that some "facts" we've all been told are irrefutable might not be so rock solid and all you can do is attack anyone who doesn't just dismiss this right off? Really? What happened to the "science" here?


Perhaps if it wasn't the case that many scientists have been saying for a decade now that the data is being manipulated and that those on the "inside" of the climate issue are faking information to support a political agenda, and that those who question the facts are being marginalized and pushed out of the process these emails might not be so relevant. But that is the case. There is a debate, no matter how much some of you don't want there to be one. And what's going on is just another example of pretending a problem doesn't exist.


You guys are nothing if not predictable. How many more times does it have to be revealed that the facts don't support the ideology before you guys dig your heads out of the sand and realize you've been lied to? I know that the desire of the scammed is to believe that they haven't been, and that it's all really true, and that there must be some mistake or reason why even though nothing adds up to what they were told, there still must be some truth to it all. Well. It's not true. And each of these revelations just makes your precious global warming theory that much more ludicrous and those who continue to hold to it that much more crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Nov 25 2009 at 5:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
gbaji doesn't understand research.


I understand research very well. I know that it's quite easy to manipulate the findings resulting from any set of data if you want to. And most of the people aren't going to say that they did this, so even a small number of examples of people saying this indicates a much much larger problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Nov 25 2009 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You never answered my question. Do you understand why your comparison was ridiculous or do you need it spelled out for you? Were you actually being serious with it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Nov 25 2009 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Evidence arises that some "facts" we've all been told are irrefutable might not be so rock solid

Which facts? The most supposedly damning thing so far was some guy using the word "trick" -- the data for which has already (and was previously) made available in both "trick" and "non-trick" form.

Make your best case for how these e-mails refute the body of science. No "But I bet there's MORE!" bullshit... make a real argument for it.

Edited, Nov 25th 2009 5:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Nov 25 2009 at 5:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
Perhaps if it wasn't the case that many scientists have been saying for a decade now that the data is being manipulated and that those on the "inside" of the climate issue are faking information to support a political agenda, and that those who question the facts are being marginalized and pushed out of the process these emails might not be so relevant..
What possible massive Smiley: tinfoilhat political machination could global climate change research be supporting? @#%^ing look at the situation for 5 seconds before you parrot conservative dogma. Do you really think the complete overhaul of the energy infrastructure benefits anyone politically or fiscally? It's expensive as hell. Do you really think that the last three decades of research have all been a farce, organized in a fashion similar to an Enron corporate scandal? To what end? And by whom? Some nutjob that hated clamshell foam Big Mac containers? A politician's wife that hated the smell of aerosol?

It's not a god-damn conspiracy, because for a conspiracy, you need a beneficiary and a rube.

Edited, Nov 25th 2009 5:54pm by AshOnMyTomatoes
#45 Nov 25 2009 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Dude, it's because the global liberal conspiracy wants to control your life! That's why academic and scientific bodies from around the planet all say that ACC is real -- because there's a vast liberal coterie that extends from Washington to London to Geneva to Moscow to Tokyo to Sydney to Bueno Aries that exists for one reason -- to control your life!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Nov 25 2009 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
You guys are nothing if not predictable. How many more times does it have to be revealed that the facts don't support the ideology before you guys dig your heads out of the sand and realize you've been lied to? I know that the desire of the scammed is to believe that they haven't been, and that it's all really true, and that there must be some mistake or reason why even though nothing adds up to what they were told, there still must be some truth to it all. Well. It's not true. And each of these revelations just makes your precious global warming theory that much more ludicrous and those who continue to hold to it that much more crazy.
So, wait, being on the fence about it (like I have been for ~10 years at least) counts as "being scammed"?

Do I believe that it's possible? Yes - the increase in CO2 obviously is going to do something. (Unless you honestly have a better theory of why Venus is how it is.) Do I believe it's happening, though? I'm not sure.

As far as whether or not we're actually being lied to: more proof, please. I'm more willing to chalk things up to an unintentional misinterpretation of data than to an intentional one simply because... well, what the hell kind of motive is there, in general, to do it intentionally? (Leave Al Gore out of this; I'm aware he's basically in the business of trying to promote the idea, and so he does have a motive in this, namely trying to drum up business. Capitalism at work. :-D)
#47 Nov 25 2009 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
gbaji wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
gbaji doesn't understand research.


I understand research very well. I know that it's quite easy to manipulate the findings resulting from any set of data if you want to. And most of the people aren't going to say that they did this, so even a small number of examples of people saying this indicates a much much larger problem.


No, you don't. You don't understand what robust findings mean. You don't understand research and its relationship to the nature of truth. You don't understand it at all.

Edited, Nov 25th 2009 7:15pm by Annabella
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#48 Nov 25 2009 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
And most of the people aren't going to say that they did this, so even a small number of examples of people saying this indicates a much much larger problem.


*********
#49 Nov 25 2009 at 6:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BrownDuck wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And most of the people aren't going to say that they did this, so even a small number of examples of people saying this indicates a much much larger problem.
Bullsh*t.

On multiple levels. It's bullshit because evidence of one is not evidence of another and it's bullshit because no one was "caught" saying "We totally faked this stuff".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Nov 25 2009 at 6:35 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Meh.

Out of something like 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents (I don't know where the column author got his much smaller numbers), they came up with less than a half dozen quips in a 13 year period -- most of which are out of context (the 'travesty' remark is complaining about the lack of tracking in some regions and the need for a larger network), scientifically irrelevant ("that guy's a jerk") or frankly not that shocking. Yay?


So. If one out of a thousand emails you've sent over the last dozen years says "Hey Joe! I killed my boss and buried him in the back yard...", we should just ignore that as evidence that your missing boss might just have met foul play at your hands? That seems like an odd defense to me...

And when the boss shows up to work the next day? Are you still going to hold that the employee killed his boss? The fact that all other evidence suggests that the boss is indeed alive and well (ie him showing up to work) is a fairly clear indication that he wasn't brutally murdered.

god you are a dolt.
#51 Nov 25 2009 at 6:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
gbaji doesn't understand research.


I understand research very well. I know that it's quite easy to manipulate the findings resulting from any set of data if you want to. And most of the people aren't going to say that they did this, so even a small number of examples of people saying this indicates a much much larger problem.


No, you don't. You don't understand what robust findings mean. You don't understand research and its relationship to the nature of truth. You don't understand it at all.

Edited, Nov 25th 2009 7:15pm by Annabella

what are you talking about? gbaji understands research and situations better than the experts who have spent half their lives in that field.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 199 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (199)