I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site

Extreme Humor

Crazy Games

123 Games

Gorilla Mask


Free Samples

Hot Games

Viva La Games

Funny Games

Arcade Games

FreeGame Heaven

Insane Pictures

Back to Listing

Climategate Is Debunked Once And For All

Hits: 6975 | Rating: (2.5) | Category: Science | Added by: Squrlz4Sale
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:53:43 PM

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. =^.^=

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:44:29 PM
@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)

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:45:23 PM
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!

Provide one quote of Sinclair's from this video that is erroneous.

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)

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 5285 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 9:50:51 AM
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).

Male, 50-59, Western US
 34237 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 6:27:28 AM

"How can a major political party be anti-science?"

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.

Male, 30-39, Europe
 649 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:56:40 AM
How can a major political party be anti-science? It's 2012, ffs.

Male, 40-49, Europe
 1405 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:16:34 AM
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.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Tuesday, May 08, 2012 12:03:13 AM

(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.)

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 11:55:11 PM
@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)

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 10:32:40 PM
@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!!!

Male, 30-39, Western US
 3404 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 9:28:33 PM

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.

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 9:14:40 PM
@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.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 9:10:22 PM
@FoolsPrussia: Wait, what? THIS counts as "peer reviewed facts" ????
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?

Male, 40-49, Western US
 3882 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 8:55:18 PM
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?

Male, 30-39, Western US
 3404 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 7:57:24 PM
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.

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 7:32:07 PM
ExxonMobil has been reported to be a major financier of the Republican Party[82]

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.

Male, 30-39, Western US
 3404 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 6:28:23 PM

"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."


Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 5:58:47 PM
@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?

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6018 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 5:21:52 PM

hee hee hee =^.^=

Male, 30-39, Western US
 3404 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 5:10:23 PM
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?

Male, 50-59, Canada
 28544 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 4:48:13 PM
"MEH! IPCC?! Snark snark" is also not a rebuttal kitty.

@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?

Male, 50-59, Midwest US
 2053 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 4:23:17 PM
The voice-over guy sounds like a douche-bag.

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 5285 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 4:14:54 PM
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).

Male, 40-49, Southern US
 5285 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 4:14:31 PM
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'.

Male, 30-39, Canada
 5753 Posts
Monday, May 07, 2012 3:53:15 PM
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.

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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |