climategateFollow

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

gbaji doesn't understand research.

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.

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.

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?

What possible massive 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

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)

*********

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.