Climategate Is Debunked Once And For All

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 4 years ago Science

Peter Sinclair takes an unusual approach: Treating the work of the scientists seriously.
There are 84 comments:
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

Regarding my challenge, I`m afraid you`ve dropped the ball. I asked you to provide a single QUOTE from the video (the video that you`ve described as "nearly fact-free") that is erroneous, which you haven`t done. Simply saying you disagree with the hockeystick graph isn`t providing a quote.

And that hockeystick graph? You know, the one you call "fake"? It`s been affirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, this nation`s most respected and prestigious scientific body. In other words, the position you`ve taken can not only be described as out of the mainstream, but actually "anti-science."

Sorry, but them`s the facts, Pentapuss. =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: I knew I should have continued with my explanation, because you`re clearly still not understanding the tree rings thing (either that or you are deliberately confusing the issue, which I doubt).

The "decline" has nothing to do with global temperatures; it has to do with tree ring growth. And in no way was Michael Mann or anyone else "hiding" the technique or trick used of blending reliable temperature proxies with modern-day scientific temperature readings; it`s stated as clear as day on the chart.

If you really do want to understand the issue, and not inadvertently repeat falsehoods, I suggest spending 20 mins reading over this and then following up with me if you still have questions.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Oh I know why they did it @Squrlz, but you (and/or others) have claimed their methods to be beyond reproach, right? So they use tree rings, until the tree rings DON`T SUPPORT THEIR CONCLUSION anymore, then they HIDE it!
Is that valid science? I simply do not care if there`s `another explaination` for the divergence. Either include ALL tree-ring data, "un tricked" or leave it out as unreliable. That`s science!
OR explain what you`ve done up front, not hide it! That`s more than dishonest, it`s unethical!

[quote]Provide one quote of Sinclair`s from this video that is erroneous.[/quote]
Hockeystick, it`s fake, false and wildly inaccurate. Erroneous is an UNDERSTATEMENT!

@CreamK: Money, money and they`re not "two groups" it`s Big Oil doing most of the "green research". And it`s not "scientists all over the world" it`s a few guys who started the AGW scare, the rest jumped on the moneytrain (AlGore)
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Gerry1of1-"The GOP has a winning strategy. They sell FEAR."

The GOP sales fear?!?!

Which party is telling sell that OTHER party is trying to kill you and steal your money? (D)
Which party is trying to sell Class Warfare? (D)
Which party is trying to sell a faux Republican `War on Women`? (D)
Which party is trying to sell Race Warfare? (D).
0
Reply
Male 37,888

mcboozerilla [quote]"How can a major political party be anti-science?" [/quote]
The GOP has a winning strategy. They sell FEAR. They let you know who is to blame for everything bad, and if they can`t find something it`s no problem to "make up facts". Like when Bush had cloning banned. He sold the idea that it lead to harvesting body parts and no one was safe from those Mad Scientists! {Mwa-ha-ha-ha }

They`re also good at wagging the dog. "Rich people got richer, and you got poorer because the liberals gave all your money away!" "Your life would be so much better if those bums weren`t soaking up the resources". It`s classic distraction while they pick your pocket.
0
Reply
Male 646
How can a major political party be anti-science? It`s 2012, ffs.
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Give me one reason why would scientists all over the world trying to fake the data, what`s their gain for doing so? So you have to stop using oil and coal sooner than later, adopting and improving clean energy technology that are designed and built by a whole another group of people and these two groups have none invested in each other.. Or is it that big corporations want to debunk climate change so they can use the dirty energy as long as they possibly can, die rich and drat the planet? My bet is on the latter.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

(3) Alas, you aren`t getting the tree-ring thing, so let me explain. In a comprehensive chart of global temperatures, going back 1,000 years, a number of temperature indicators are used: coral growths, ice cores, historical records, tree rings, and thermometer readings (from 1800 onward). There is a close correlation of all indicators over the 1,000 year span--except for tree rings, which, from 1960, diverge from known thermometer readings. In a nutshell, the summer growth rings aren`t as thick as they should be for the known temperatures recorded. It`s believed this may be due to acid rain, but the science is not yet in.

So why include tree ring data at all? Because aside from the past 40 years, the tree ring data is a reliable indicator and the more indicators you have, the better the science.

Are you getting this now, or should I continue for another post? (Sincere question, no condescension intended.)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@5Cats: Hmmm. Your comment touches on a number of subjects. For brevity`s sake, let me respond by numbered items.

(1) Peter Sinclair`s videos have gotten a great deal of attention among scientists and science writers. They have not, alas, received much attention from the general public.

(2) You say the video is "nearly fact-free." Well, that must mean it`s full of falsehoods. My challenge: Provide one quote of Sinclair`s from this video that is erroneous.

(Cont`d next post)
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@Squrlz: This video hads gotten the attention it deserves: none.
It is "fact lite" very nearly "fact free"!
As I said already: it addresses 2 of the dozens of frauds and falsehoods revealed in ClimateGate, and doesn`t disprove anything.

So: "Hide the decline" means leaving out tree-ring data after 1992? Why? Because it disagrees with AGW that`s why! It`s still faux science!!!
0
Reply
Male 3,445
5Cats:

I`m not specifically referring to that link. I`m speaking more generally about the global warming debate, and the studies being done by climate scientists all around the world.

And the link I posted went straight there because I clicked on a header on the wikipedia page.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Markust: I submitted this video, despite the fact that it`s from 2009, because:

(a) I hear mention of how "Climategate has PROVEN global warming is a HOAX" on practically a nightly basis on here, and this video addresses that;

(b) the video--and for that matter, the entire oeuvre of Peter Sinclair--hasn`t received as much attention as it deserves; and

(c) this particular video does a great job of illustrating how Fox News strives to misinform the American voter.

My apologies if you`ve seen the video already.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@FoolsPrussia: Wait, what? THIS counts as "peer reviewed facts" ????
O`really?
Reporting that Exxon-Mobile DONATES TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY is surely breaking news! It totally seals the deal! Oh wait, they also donate to the Democrats? NOT news! Move along!

PS: how do you get the link to show the part of the page you`re refering to?
0
Reply
Male 4,284
Seriously? First there was a 2 month old Birther video that every point had been debunked almost a year before it was even created. And now a 2009 global warming video? Both sides are really scraping the barrel. Is it National Troll Week?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
There really is no arguing with you guys sometimes. We present you with peer-reviewed facts, by an inherently skeptical body (scientists), and yet you still only accept the articles that support your own previously established opinion.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]ExxonMobil has been reported to be a major financier of the Republican Party[82][/quote]
THE HORROR!!!!
Sorry bro, they spent money opposing Kyoto, and countering anti-oil groups out to get them.
Exxon-Mobile is worth what? 400 Billion? They spent a few pennies and that disproves ALL AGW skeptics? Mmmm, nope!

Meanwhile, they`re still getting lots of $$ for `green energy research` eh?

It`s a seriously `moot point` which I`ll gladly grant you, since everything I said still stands.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
5Cats:

"ExxonMobil has been accused of paying to fuel skepticism of anthropogenic global warming"

"A survey carried out by the UK`s Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence"

"A recent analysis by Carbon Brief from 2011 concluded that 9 out of 10 climate scientists who claim that climate change is not happening, have ties to ExxonMobil."

SOURCE
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@FoolsPrussia: In what fantasyland do you live? The "oil industry" is making a KILLING off the AGW scare! WHO do you think gets all that "research money"? eh? Little "mom and pop" companies run out of a garage? NO!!!!

Grow up man, certian segments of industry are getting rich off YOUR tax dollars, and don`t even have to do a single bit of "good" to boot! It`s all hype, results aren`t even required for a mountain of cash to fund your PRO-AGW "research". Anti-AGW funding? ZERO!
What side of that equation do you think a "scientist" is going to choose?
0
Reply
Male 6,227


hee hee hee =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Almost all the climate change denier arguments I hear are based on the idea that the groups presenting the information are compromised by some monetary reason. In what world are the major climate deniers NOT invested in keeping the fossil fuel industry going?
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]"MEH! IPCC?! Snark snark" is also not a rebuttal kitty.[/quote]
@Baalthy: Wrong guy, wasn`t me.
AND AS USUAL: your link to "prove" your point actually proves mine (and @MeGrendel`s).
It says: 98% of active publishers on Climate Change agree! It says nothing even remotley like "every single major body of science" FFS!

Now answer my questions, rather than whine about where I got a graph from, ok?
0
Reply
Male 2,085
The voice-over guy sounds like a douche-bag.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-"YOUR bias is showing in the form of unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence."

Evidence, I`ll accept. AGENDA I will not.

I know you like to ignore them, but there ARE reports out there that have concluded that the climage changes we experience are natural and cyclic.

But, you`d prefer to spew your "97% of scientists support AGW" numbers, even when they have been proven to be wrong.

I understand that we need to protect our environment. I recycle, I would LOVE an electric car once it becomes a viable alternative, etc. I just don`t understand how giving Al Gore money for `Credits` and giving up my freedoms will make someone else feel good about themselves (except for Al Gore).
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-"Have you ever written a paper before?"

I have written papers that presented the results (AND NUMBERS) of research to my management. This has included introduction of new materials, products, classification of raw materials, and also exactly what happens to a monomer phase when you attempt to neutralize it with sulfuric acid that has an abnormally high concentration (110 ppm) of iron (hint: instead of a liquid, you get a hockey-puck...REALLY bad for the reactor)

BTW: JUGGLING numbers when dealing with reactive materials is what we call `A Bad Idea`.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]If a research uses the term `I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have`, his results are questionable.[/quote]
Have you ever written a paper before? "Juggling" statistics can be as simple as using different post hoc tests to find significance, which is what EVERY scientist does.

But you`re right. Every single paper in every single journal has tweaked numbers, omitted data and an agenda to push AGW. EVERY. SINGLE. PAPER. I think YOUR bias is showing in the form of unwillingness to accept overwhelming evidence.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-"It`s funny you say that you believe in research"

I do, I can also recognize when research has an agenda and/or has been fudged.

If a researcher is found to have ignored data (ie, the little ice age), the results are questionable.
If a researcher uses the term `ingorant masses` in an e-mail, his results are questionable.
If a research uses the term `I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have`, his results are questionable.
If a researcher uses the sentance `I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline`, I`m more than happy to call bullpoo.

People like to state `the vast majority of research backs up AGW`, but they completely ignore the mistakes, the lies and the deception.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Baalthazaq-"Your offer: Lets stick to Economic Geologists."

Just realized you had a reading comprehension problem. My apologies.

I did NOT say let`s stick to Economic Geologists. I merely pointed out there was at least one that disproved your ascertation (quote: There is NO analysis of scientists that does not show the majority support AGW other than polls that ONLY count those who disagree with it.)

MY offer: present the Facts and the Numbers. The RAW DATA. Not the fudged, tweeked and interpreted. (strangely enough, they don`t want to realease the raw data. Hadley-CRU even went so far as to DESTROY their raw data. Now why would that be?)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Your websites aren`t good enough. If you`re going to be arguing about scientific results and predictions, you need peer-reviewed scientific literature. How do I know any of the "facts" on your websites are accurate? Because you say they are? I can start a website and put some graphs on it, but that doesn`t make it right.

@MeGrendel: It`s funny you say that you believe in research, because the vast majority of research backs up AGW. Also, shouldn`t you be able to produce at least one piece of scientific evidence to verify your claims? It seems to me like all this is just your opinion because you have no evidence. All you`re doing is saying that my sources are false, but you don`t really have anything of your own to contribute.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
And just yelling "MEH! IPCC?! Snark snark" is also not a rebuttal kitty.

You`re ignoring the data of tens of thousands of scientists, then claiming no science exists.

You`re welcome to disagree with every single major body of science on earth.

But cut the pomp of "whooo, home run!" every time Grendel says so much as "I`m unconvinced".

NO. MAJOR. SCIENTIFIC. BODY. DISSENTS.

That`s a home run.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"Actually, there IS one (of economic geologists). But it seems that in every report that finds an overwelming concensus, the higher the percent agree, the more limited the pool of scientists."

Your complaint: The more limited the pool, the greater the consensus.
Your offer: Lets stick to Economic Geologists.
My offer: Climate researchers (97%), Climatologists (97%), ALL earth science (90% for GW, 82% for AGW). (Still far beyond the 50% mark).

The less they know about climate, the more the number goes down. Those that specialize in climate science are higher than those that don`t.

Any reason you don`t apply your criticism to yourself?
Remember: Too narrow a field, profit motive, and your only comeback is Eco-Geos?
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@patchy: Are you claiming the `little ice age` never happened? Because YOUR "peer reviewed" souce (the Hockey Stick) says it did not.

The Climategate e-Mails show HOW the AGWers `got around` proper peer reviews, just fyi.

Your PNAS report is entirely based on how MANY times you`ve published. The CGeM clearly detail how AGWers conspired to NOT publish anything countering their views. Also to publish the same pro-AGW papers in multiple publications, thus greatly inflating their "importance".

Simply claiming my sources aren`t "goog enough" doesn`t change the fact that they`re true...
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-"the reason those studies don`t get published is because they are loose conclusions based on sloppy research"

Of course!! Not like the PRECISE and HIGHLY ACCURATE conclusions of the IPCC (you know, like the Hockey stick, Himalayan glaciers, sea level in the Netherlands and African crop yields, etc).

Or how about the PRECISE and HIGHLY ACCURATE conclusions of Al Gore? (who, btw got a `D` in Natural Sciences). You know, exaggerating the official sea-level estimeate by close to 10,000%, Lake Chad `drying up`, Polar Bears dying (seeing as the Polar Bear population is increasing)

See, I`m a chemist. I believe in research, not opinion. When one of my emulsions inverts, I look at the materials I put into it or the process for what went wrong. I don`t go by the janitor saying `you didn`t cross your fingers`.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
The sooner AGW is recognized for the farce it is, the better off we all will be. In fact there is more evidence we are headed toward cooler temperatures, not warmer ones.

If we are indeed headed into a Maunder Minimum solar cycle, we could have another mini-ice age and that would be catastrophic for food crops worldwide.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
Baalthazaq-"1) Fossil fuel funds bad science for a profit motive."

Yes, I admit that scientific results can be bought. But, not only by Fossil fuel funds. It also can be bought by political agendas.

Baalthazaq-"2) There is NO analysis of scientists that does not show the majority support AGW "

Actually, there IS one (of economic geologists). But it seems that in every report that finds an overwelming concensus, the higher the percent agree, the more limited the pool of scientists. Like `among those who publish that AGW occurs, many believe AGW occurs` or `Of the three scientists who answered the phone when we called the United Nations committee on Global Warming during lunch on Tuesay June 7th, 66% believe in AGW.`

Here`s a novel IDEA! Why not go by the factual, unbiased numbers? Not the fudged, tweeked and interpreted ones.

Or is it that AGW is just so important that you can`t go on the facts?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: I`m looking at the scoreboard, it`s my peer-reviewed articles vs. your random websites. Get some real evidence and we`ll talk, mmkay?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Maybe it`s because I`m using Chrome, but I can`t get "properties" when I click on the pic. Also the website it`s from is just that...a website. Not very credible. Also if you think Fox is "slightly right" then you are delusional.

@MeGrendel: Ah, yes, moving the goalposts and saying "Well, the reason people against ACC aren`t publishing is because it`s all a conspiracy!"

No, it`s not a conspiracy. Occam`s razor would disagree, and the reason those studies don`t get published is because they are loose conclusions based on sloppy research. I can find many more published papers confirming the consensus of the scientific community, but apparently you can make them goal posts pretty wide. I`ll take the scientific community`s word over yours any day.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
MeGrendel:
1) Fossil fuel funds bad science for a profit motive.
2) There is NO analysis of scientists that does not show the majority support AGW other than polls that ONLY count those who disagree with it.

Correction on the basis of your criticism changes AGW values slightly. Were you to apply similar criticism to your own side, it is instantly obliterated.

When you talk about the funding, you only have big oil funded scientists as an alternative. When you talk about polling, you only have those that ignore completely the other side.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
... and then @Baalthy comes along and strikes out! LMAO!

@Baalth: Do you seriously not see the irony in your post? Really?
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]it`s a pretty massive coinsidence that temperature has been rising at the same time humans began with industrialisation if it is one.[/quote]
Um, @TheSchmoo? It isn`t and it hasn`t. Global temperatures have risen much higher and dropped much lower all without human assistance.

@MeGrendel: You keep hitting home-run after home-run, and @patchy just refuses to look at the scoreboard! lolz!
Truth is: AGW supporters have zero science; it`s all hype.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
5 Cats, it`s 7 generally right stations and 1 wrong.

Seriously 5 Cats, you are far, far far far right. That the center is left of you does not make them "the left".
0
Reply
Male 36,400
An Excellent Article
Discusses WHY the "hockey stick" is useless: it`s only the Northern Hemasphere, for one thing, lolz! It`s only one of MANY faults.

Does anyone have an answer to this:
Tree ring data is used as one indication of global temperatures, correct? WHY do the AGW guys simply stop using it when it shows the temperature going down? (the video clearly explains this is what they did) Is that valid scientific method? @patchy? Anyone?
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-" here`s another paper..."

That is also mainly `Show me the graph and I`ll give you the data` science.

Here`s where Anderegg fudged the numbers: "we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 ...to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.."

That term `most actively publishing` is where they get the data to support thier bias. Seeing as there is more money in publishing such titles `GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL` in support of the government`s position rather than `WE REALLY DON`T KNOW", it would stand to reason that basing your study (which you want to support your bias) only on those who agree with you results in bad science.

The study`s author Anderegg ADMITED that he did not look, nor is his report representative of, the total number of climate scientist. Just the mosts activ
0
Reply
Male 36,400
@patchy: Internets 101: Right click on picture, click "properties" look at the "address (url)": DUH!
Here`s the article it`s lifted from

Funny how the "proof" of AGW is all from 2006-2009, the hieght of the AGW scare, but NOW there`s no further proof? Interesting, eh?

@FoolsPrussia: "Entire industries rely on fossil fuels. Why don`t you apply the same principle to climate deniers?" eh? Why don`t YOU apply that logic to the AGW Indusrty, that`s a better question.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
[quote]What`s that you were saying about liberal bias in the MSM @5cats?[/quote]
@patchy: 1 "slightly right" station vs 7 "seriously left" stations, ok?
Plus: this video only attempts to "explain away" TWO of the dozens of indications of fakery and fraud found within the Climategate e-mails.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Nice graph with no reference.
0
Reply
Male 36,400
Thier "proof" that AGW is real and that the "hockey stick" is accurate is a report from 2006? LOLZ! THAT IS FUNNY!

Yes, there is a "warming trend" and has been since the "little ice age" DUH! but the fact remains: it has been HOTTER in the past and without any help from humans.

This video was entirely fact-free.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
@MeGrendel: Ok, if you’re unconvinced by the IPCC, here`s another paper that confirms the majority of the scientific community believes in anthropogenic climate change. Again, if you’re also butt-hurt because people who know more than you about it don’t agree with you. Sorry, but just because you want to wear a tinfoil hat doesn’t mean your opinion matters.
0
Reply
Male 7,340
patchgrabber-"The disagrees with you.IPCC"

Seriously? You`re using the IPCC as a cite? The one that gave found in error concerning the Hockey Stick, Himalayan glaciers, Sea level in the Netherlands, African crop yields, etc?

FoolsPrussia-"Turning oil into gasoline involves a scientific process."

And it`s about a complicated `scientific process` as observing condensation on a cold glass.

Watching this pitch drip has been a scienfic process for 85 years:



It`s dripped exactly 8 times.

Not exactly ground-breaking.

Don`t get me wrong, I`m all for the scientific process, but there`s a difference of a `scientific process` that finds rats on crack like to listen to the Doobie Brothers, and a `scientific process` that`s w
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Yes the planet goes through natural rhythms, but man adds to it. If we can leave an entire substrate of plastics and steel why is it so hard to believe we`re affecting the atmosphere and temperature too? We`re in the anthropecene now.
0
Reply
Male 213
Heh my old Uni, didn`t study with those guys in particular but I did study the course there a few years back. I`m pretty confident that they were telling the truth, it`s a pretty massive coinsidence that temperature has been rising at the same time humans began with industrialisation if it is one.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
"Climategate Is Debunked Once And For All"

That is BS. It isn`t even new, this goes back to just after the first leak, and even there ignores the most important bit (harry_readme.txt) as did all the defenders of the CRU - hoping correctly that the legacy media would also ignore it.

This is by turns idiotic and dishonest. Why is it supposed to be worth a slot here?

It takes the old propaganda from the climate "scientists" and repeats it, ignoring what the sceptics actually took out of the emails.

The
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I was being a troll. Patch knows it. Go put on a diaper or something mr. 70 & over. ;)
0
Reply
Male 10,845
Push as much "science" as you want legislation isn`t going do a darn thing for the environment. It will, however, waste billions of tax payer dollars.
0
Reply
Male 2
Auburnjunky >>Science didn`t help poo. A guy found oil, and another guy found out how to change it into gasoline.


Apparently the "guy" who discovered oil did it all through the power of prayer? wow, who knew eh?

0
Reply
Male 5,811
@AJ: It is fun work for me, but most people I know would be bored to tears by it. I`m just butt-hurt because budgets are getting slashed everywhere and specifically in programs that don`t fit with our current government`s ideologies. Oh, and the fact that Canada will be doing no blue-sky research any more is comforting as well.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Wow dude. That sounds like fun, fulfilling work. Keep your head up man!

0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]What`s new in the world of Maple Syrup?[/quote]
Don`t get me started. I`m not very pleased at the direction this institution is going, I may very well be analyzing maple syrup if a business wants us to.
0
Reply
Male 2,199
are people still following this global warming fad? i thought it died out a couple years ago...
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Wait a sec. Canada? Scientist?

What`s new in the world of Maple Syrup? ;)

Just kidding man.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Okay. I took a shot and was wrong lol.

0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Go back to your lab, scientist. Oh wait, you aren`t a scientist?[/quote]
I suppose being a molecular biologist/biochemist for my country`s leading scientific institution doesn`t make me a scientist. Well at least I learned something today.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
I basically did.

Go back to your lab, scientist. Oh wait, you aren`t a scientist? You don`t have integral knowledge of what you defend?

You and me are the same, sir. lol
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Doesn`t mean I have any scientific knowledge...[/quote]
You could have stopped right there.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
There`s a difference between industrializing oil, and industrializing fear.

The polar bears are thriving people. It`s okay.

Also, there`s a scientific process in making a peanut butter sandwich. Doesn`t mean I have any scientific knowledge just because I can make one.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Science didn`t help poo. A guy found oil, and another guy found out how to change it into gasoline."

Turning oil into gasoline involves a scientific process. Building machines that convert oil to energy involves applying scientific principles.

"I might not be as skeptical, of they hadn`t tried to make money off of it."

Entire industries rely on fossil fuels. Why don`t you apply the same principle to climate deniers?

0
Reply
Male 10,339
Okay Bu. You got a deal lol.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Science didn`t help poo. A guy found oil, and another guy found out how to change it into gasoline.

No theories were involved. It was all manufacturing needs.

The reason we don`t believe it, is because of all the warming and cooling that has happened over the past, oh I dunno, hundreds of millions of years. How is this any different?

What happened to the "global cooling" scare of the 70`s and 80`s? They tried to monetize that too, and it failed.

I might not be as skeptical, of they hadn`t tried to make money off of it.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@AJ - In... lets say 40 years, when you`re approaching 80, I`ll accept your apology and admittance that you were wrong. :)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Whatever patch. It`s a natural cycle, period, point blank.[/quote]
What`s the matter, no evidence to justify your claim? Yes there IS a natural cycle, but people are adding to it. Like I told Ollie in another thread, don`t be butt-hurt because people who know much more about something than you don`t agree with you.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Science helped us tap into the power of fossil fuels. So why is it that we refuse to listen to science when they tell is it is harmful?
0
Reply
Male 1,249
Fox News = TV for making idiots
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Whatever patch. It`s a natural cycle, period, point blank.

I don`t want any of their damn carbon credits, thank you.
0
Reply
Male 734
The problem is it`s not JUST the Climategate problem, it`s so many other problems with the global warming argument that is the problem. There is so much fuzzy data in the argument that has created the 800 pound gorilla that nobody wants to address that is in the room. THAT`S the problem!

I remember a few years ago about how all these GW advocates were using test data to show how global warming was happening in some midwest states. They had charts and graphs and all sorts of data to support their claim. That is, until someone discovered that somebody moved one of their main sensors from an open farm field to being right next door to a research facility where it was sitting next to an air conditioning unit...a heavy heat source. OOPS! Their entire study was proven false. It didn`t get reported by CNN, ABC, or CBS, or NBC (big shock) but it proved their claim was inaccurate. The problem is, there are SO MANY of these types of stories out there, not just isolated cases.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
AJ: "Yes, warming is happening, but there`s no substantive proof to say that man is responsible. "
The disagrees with you.IPCC
0
Reply
Male 1,471
There you have it folks. Unless of course you don`t accept "reason" as a valid form of argumentation.
0
Reply
Male 2,670
Fox News = TV for Idiots.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Yes, warming is happening, but there`s no substantive proof to say that man is responsible.

I mean, when the great warming happened around the time of the dinosaurs, was it man and his damn cars that caused that?

It`s a natural cycle, that panty waists who are afraid of a little sun are freaking out about, so they invented ways to make money off of it. Simply put.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
But the Unibomber believes Global Warming is real...so, you know!
0
Reply
Male 2,172
Scientists today try to take into account all the little datas that they`ve obtained and make some theories based on those results... but when you talk about warming you talk about energy and when you talk about energy you talk about waves/frequencies and we`re just in the beginning of our exploration in this subject and there`s no way of clearly recording those right now.

What the guy is calling a travesty in that email is the fact that they`re not funding research for those things. AND IT`S A GOOD THING because those piece of equipments the scientist want are purely experimental, cost billions and could give false/erroneous datas.

The word here is "research" because that`s what those scientists are doing. So keep on searching but keep your hands off my wallet plz.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Seems like Fox was the main perpetrator of this cherry-picking. What`s that you were saying about liberal bias in the MSM @5cats?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
As I`ve said in many posts: To outright deny that greenhouse gasses can contribute to global warming is ridiculous. It exists and has been PROVEN.

It will not end the world any time soon, but to think that you can burn fossil fuels for the next hundred years and not suffer any ill-effects is laughable.
0
Reply
Male 2,172
When people start to talk about earth energy budget my head start to spin.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
That reporter sounds like Van Driessen.

That`s the hippie from the Beavis and Butthead clip, for you younger folk.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: Climategate Is Debunked Once And For All [Rate Link] - Peter Sinclair takes an unusual approach: Treating the work of the scientists seriously.
0
Reply