Climate Change

[GirlyMan]

Obviously I win.

Obviously. Game over I guess. ... What'd you win?

 

[james2012]

Obviously. Game over I guess. ... What'd you win?

GirlyMan, I went to bed after I typed my response. I am, of course, being comical here. My IQ is actually around 140 (your IQ - mine was actually 145 when younger and around 140 now when I take the standardized tests online) and my member is of average length (which is okay as I am married and my wife is okay with that - although she might be just making me feel good).

Given the intensity of our debate I should probably have put a smiley face after my comments to ensure it was clear I was attempting to be funny. At this point in the discussion, the emotions are so high that I am not surprised you actually took me seriously. I wish I had an IQ that high!

 

[GirlyMan]

... my member is of average length (which is okay as I am married and my wife is okay with that - although she might be just making me feel good).

No, she actually probably is okay with that. It's only us that fret over the relative sizes of our cocks.

At this point in the discussion, the emotions are so high that I am not surprised you actually took me seriously.

My point is that when emotions enter the debate, the debate is over. I have no idea whether or not any of the points you've been trying to make are valid or not because as soon as I see you belittling someone I just dismiss your point out of hand and don't pursue it any further. And that's my point.

You are clearly not a stupid man and I think we could have productive discussions. But that will not happen as long as you continue to believe there are smaller and bigger intellects. There are only small, infinitesimal, barely aware intellects and we are all in the midst of this incomprehensible shit just trying to make sense of it together brother.

 

[CubbieBlue]

No, she actually probably is okay with that. It's only us that fret over the relative sizes of our cocks.



My point is that when emotions enter the debate, the debate is over. I have no idea whether or not any of the points you've been trying to make are valid or not because as soon as I see you belittling someone I just dismiss your point out of hand and don't pursue it any further. And that's my point.

You are clearly not a stupid man and I think we could have productive discussions. But that will not happen as long as you continue to believe there are smaller and bigger intellects. There are only small, infinitesimal, barely aware intellects and we are all in the midst of this incomprehensible shit just trying to make sense of it together brother.

Agreed. I tried to make this point through my criticism of your "Obambi" stuff. You are a smart guy, and I actually agree w/ some of the stuff you say. But like GM, I immediately tune your stuff out when you start getting personal.

 

[GirlyMan]

But like GM, I immediately tune your stuff out when you start getting personal.

It's the only rational thing to do, Cubbie.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

UN Clueless about Arctic Sea Ice Thinning: MIT
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197583/20110814/arctic-sea-ice-thinning-un.htm

Researchers from MIT attacked the United Nations' recent global climate report and said that the U.N. underestimated the severity of Arctic sea ice melting. MIT's research team said that the thinning probably happened four times more quickly than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted. The panel predicted that all ice would disappear in the Arctic by the summer of 2100. MIT forecasters said that it will likely happen sooner.

 

[james2012]

ROFLMAO. Now MIT is going to join the ranks of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC as a bunch of hacks. Look for this data to be debunked and exposed as faux science.

Man, this just gets better every single day.

Dominoes man, dominoes.

 

[GirlyMan]

ROFLMAO. Now MIT is going to join the ranks of NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC as a bunch of hacks. Look for this data to be debunked and exposed as faux science.

Man, this just gets better every single day.

It does get better every day. Next you'll be including the National Academy of Sciences, CalTech, UC Berkeley, my alma maters of Maryland and Johns Hopkins, along with the entire cadre of the rest of the U.S. and World higher institutes of learning as practicing faux science. ... Oh wait, I'm not sure you haven't already done that in a previous post around here somewhere. Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceived answer to your hypothesis is practicing pseudo science. .... Ummm, I starting to think your definition of science may not be consistent with everyone else's.

 

[james2012]

It does get better every day. Next you'll be including the National Academy of Sciences, CalTech, UC Berkeley, my alma maters of Maryland and Johns Hopkins, along with the entire cadre of the rest of the U.S. and World higher institutes of learning as practicing faux science. ... Oh wait, I'm not sure you haven't already done that in a previous post around here somewhere. Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your preconceived answer to your hypothesis is practicing pseudo science. .... Ummm, I starting to think your definition of science may not be consistent with everyone else's.

If you did any reading, you would find that all my statements are backed by facts. These organizations are being caught in very, very embarrassing situations that cannot be excused as a single mistake but rather a characterization of a habitual behavior. It's called money - I am sure even you, a closet socialist understands what money is. If you don't tell your sponsors what they want to hear, you don't get the grant. It's that simple. And it's all connected through the IPCC.

Read man before you post. It makes you look uneducated and trite. The facts are out there. The destruction of careers - finally those who are passing on the faux science as opposed to those trying to expose it - is very real and happening every day. Reputations are being destroyed and the ENTIRE movement is losing steam as scientists realize that a few bucks now is not worth it when your ruined reputation means no money or employment later. Why do you think the PR machine against global warming is finally losing? Come on, you can guess.

That's right, because the American public understands scandal. They don't follow the science so swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Hey, there scientists, they are not supposed to be biased right? Wrong.

Scandal is the death of global warming hoax. You can thank the IPCC, NOAA, NASA and a few others who are being called out and exposed. Oh, and then there is that photographer caught faking the message behind the polar bear trapped on on a floating piece of melting glacial ice. Oh, the poor polar bear! Well, that guy just had his credential removed and was exposed for the lying asshole he is.

Don't you better by now not to challenge me unless you have actual facts?

Next.

 

[james2012]

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? – Telegraph Blogs

Just the beginning from a 2009 just now making its way past the Media's blockade. I have tons more. If the reading is too difficult for you, ask a friend.

 

[james2012]

Here are a few of the teasers. If you want to continue to back these guys up it says more about you than you can possibly imagine:

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Next. And this was just a warmup. I'm just getting ready for round 1. You ain't seen nothing yet. I'll throw so many facts at you you'll curl up in the fetal position as your worldview collapses around you and you suddenly realize you've been duped. You won't just call into question your existence as you have stated is a favorite pastime of yours, but your sanity and intelligence as well.

 

[GirlyMan]

Here are a few of the teasers. If you want to continue to back these guys up it says more about you than you can possibly imagine:

Well, here's their response to your objections. Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

You ain't seen nothing yet. I'll throw so many facts at you you'll curl up in the fetal position as your worldview collapses around you and you suddenly realize you've been duped.

You have no chance of accomplishing that.

You won't just call into question your existence as you have stated is a favorite pastime of yours, but your sanity and intelligence as well.

If I don't have confidence in my own existence, what makes you think I would continue to have any confidence in my sanity or intelligence? Or anyone else's for that matter. Your reasoning seems back asswards to me.

 

[james2012]

Well, here's their response to your objections. Climate Change and the Integrity of Science



You have no chance of accomplishing that.



If I don't have confidence in my own existence, what makes you think I would continue to have any confidence in my sanity or intelligence? Or anyone else's for that matter. Your reasoning seems back asswards to me.

Jesus, you really don't read do you. Did you read the Climategate emails - I made it easier for you by posting the highlights above - just one of thousands. And you send over a mambly pambly piece about the integrity of science which states "There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything."

Wow, what a shock. I AM NOT talking about science but a scandal that exposes a concerted effort to hide scientific facts that don't match a political theme. Faking data is faking data. The piece you link to is a seriously pussified attempt by the Gorebots to save their precious attempt at controlling billions of dollars through carbon taxes and its dismal failure AFTER every single organization involved in the research has been outed.

Don't talk to me about science. These aholes have ruined science for a long time. Nobody is ever going to believe science does not have some kind of agenda now.

What part of faking the data don't you get? Is English your first language or do you have serious issues reading. Honestly, I want to know. Because it is all laid out for your in black and white.

Sheesh!

 

[james2012]

Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws | Environment | The Guardian

NOAA and the New "Climategate" Scandal

Now read them please and quit making excuses.

To put it another way, if you were about to take a med for bladder cancer that cured that cancer but had a 99.9% chance of killing you in one of three other ways and this was leaked to the media via some emails that also found that all FDA trials were faked and one scientist emailed another - hey, I'll just move the decimal point over two spaces and make is .999% instead, you would be an idiot to take the pill.

Are you an idiot?

 

[CubbieBlue]

Just because... (from wiki):

Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[38] The Guardian's analysis of the emails found that the hacker had filtered them using keywords, including "Yamal", "tree rings", and "Phil Jones", so that these terms appear in many of the documents.[24] The controversy has thus focused on a small number of emails.[38] Skeptic websites picked out particular phrases, including one in which Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[23] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[39] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[40][41][

/B]

An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, often using Freedom of Information Act requests, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using. Nature considered that e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers.

Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct.

If you read the wiki article (which is very well sourced) it basically summarizes that the emails were quoted in poor context.

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.[109

]

The scientists did seem to engage in a little bit of shady stuff but nothing I would call egregious.

The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.[126] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.

So, again, Gene, there are two sides to every coin.

 

[james2012]

Just because... (from wiki):

/B]





If you read the wiki article (which is very well sourced) it basically summarizes that the emails were quoted in poor context.

]

The scientists did seem to engage in a little bit of shady stuff but nothing I would call egregious.



So, again, Gene, there are two sides to every coin.

Sorry Cubbie, but it is not taking. Scientists are fleeing this like a hot potato. And the ideas that keywords were used to cherry pick emails says what? If those emails indicate a concerted effort to cover up the truth, the rest of them magically don't? Statistics is against you on that one. This is a puff piece trying to revive a dying patient. This is not the other side of the coin, this is penny falling into the sewer. Grants are disappearing and citizens are aware.

I mean c'mon man - a piece of code used to derive a host of data used by agencies around the world has the comment stating the following piece of code is to "hide the decline" and I'm supposed to buy the weak arguments from your piece above.

Sorry, but it does not pass the smell test. They were outed. And there were thousands of pages of emails. How much are the above authors claiming were missed? How about releasing them all? Hmmm...that has not happened so the logical question to ask is - why?

The answer: more damning evidence of not just a cover up of a scientific hoax of epic proportions, but the possibility of lawsuits as scientists find their names as targets by the hoax propagators.

This is far from over. More data is coming out every single day and the evidence is clearly pointing to a singular conclusion - through the use of money and influence, a great hoax was hoisted onto a public with the pointed intent of wealth redistribution through the UN from productive countries to non-productive or emerging economies. Why do you think Copenhagen was such a disaster? Ian Plimer did more to kill this movement than anyone I know - other than the hackers themselves. Thank God we have fearless people like this to save us from a disastrous and job-killing policy.

 

[james2012]

Just because... (from wiki):

/B]





If you read the wiki article (which is very well sourced) it basically summarizes that the emails were quoted in poor context.

]

The scientists did seem to engage in a little bit of shady stuff but nothing I would call egregious.



So, again, Gene, there are two sides to every coin.

And Cubbie - just a small piece of advice. Never use Wiki as a source for any argument. Doing so is old school as people figured out how to game the site to suit their needs a long time ago.

 

[CubbieBlue]

And Cubbie - just a small piece of advice. Never use Wiki as a source for any argument. Doing so is old school as people figured out how to game the site to suit their needs a long time ago.

Everything on wiki is cited. Some of the same sources you have used in this thread are cited in that wiki article.

 

[james2012]

Everything on wiki is cited. Some of the same sources you have used in this thread are cited in that wiki article.

It is still a very questionable source due to its propensity to become hijacked by supporters or non-supporters. Go the the sources and use those. You would be better off.

Internet debates where someone points to Wiki is often followed by a thrashing of the person who relies on such an unreliable source.

More to the point - have you ever read an article by any journalist that references Wiki? They would not dare.

 

[GirlyMan]

Are you an idiot?

All right, gmeritless, let's consider my options. I could either let myself be persuaded by a teabagger on a muscle and fitness forum who continually tries to berate and belittle me into agreement, or I could go with the 97% of climatologists - you know those nerds who go out and get PhDs in some esoteric shit in order to get paid to do what they love - who disagree with you. .... hmmm