Climategate

[EvilYeti]

...................................................

trolling trolling trolling...

abdul's fat is rolling...

trolling trolling trolling... RAWHIDE!

[Vorticity]

GodDAMMIT, you two!

If you must jizz all over my internets, at least keep it out of the science area. Confine yourselves to the politics section, which is at least designed for containment of such shenanigans.

[hammegk]

More idiocy from fuckwits.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101129/D9JPSJVO0.html

[DrMatt]

More idiocy from fuckwits.

Hammegk and himself win the Self-referential-post-award!

[hammegk]

I thought you were attending the conference. I'm not.

I agree you remain more at the 99% anal leakage stage.

[EvilYeti]

More idiocy from fuckwits.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101129/D9JPSJVO0.html

Naomi Oreskes recently made the excellent point that the time it took from knowing for certain that tobacco had harmful health effects till the time it was regulated was about fifty years.

Given the majority of humans being fuckwits, I fully expect this cycle to repeat itself.

[robinson]

Gotta agree with Vorticity

[DrMatt]

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/stori ... record.png


It is what it is.

[Rob Lister]

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/images/stori ... record.png


It is what it is.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/R ... age006.gif

and that's what it is.

[DrMatt]

You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.

[Rob Lister]

You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.

it was convenient. is it wrong?

[DrMatt]

You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.

it was convenient. is it wrong?

I dunno, but it isn't primary, and a glance at AppInSys's home page shows that they're spinning things, so it makes it look bad.

[hammegk]

You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.

it was convenient. is it wrong?

Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.

[DrMatt]

You might try getting a primary source on that rather than the rather obviously motivated AppInSys.

it was convenient. is it wrong?

Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.

Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.

[hammegk]

it was convenient. is it wrong?

Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.

Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.

Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.

[DrMatt]

Good luck finding the answer. It doesn't agree with exhibits on warmer-porn sites like realclimate.org or IPCC.

Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.

Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.

Which field of science are you active in, again?

[hammegk]

Or, you know, stuff by scientists who are just collecting data.

Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.

Which field of science are you active in, again?

That's on a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to.

[DrMatt]

Who does that anymore? Sounds like a good way to lose your funding though.

Which field of science are you active in, again?

That's on a need-to-know basis, and you don't need to.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I regret to inform you that theology is not a field of science, at the moment.

[Rob Lister]

lol

[Anaxagoras]

Michelle Bachmann: "Carbon Dioxide is a Natural By-Product of Nature"

[youtube]02EpAMm8rfo[/youtube]

Two fallacies here:

1) The naturalistic fallacy.

2) The strawman fallacy.

Sure, carbon dioxide is "natural." That's irrelevant.

Then there's the strawman. She says that people are claiming that it is "harmful." No. That's not the claim at all. The claim is that it is opaque to infrared light, which is demonstrated in this video. In fact, without CO2, the earth would be a snowball. The average temperature would be below freezing.

[Rob Lister]

She says that people are claiming that it is "harmful." No. That's not the claim at all.

Actually, that is the claim by many that 'count' (make the rules)

http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+pollutant

Now, as any good assassin knows, dose makes the poison.
And as any good politician knows, rhetoric makes the debate.

[Anaxagoras]

Well, every chemical that exists can be "harmful" if there is too much of it where you don't want it.
Carbon dioxide in small amounts is not harmful. In fact, the earth would be too cold without it. In large amounts it can indeed be harmful. Because too much heat can indeed be harmful (as can not enough heat). That's the relevant claim with regard to global warming.

But she claims that there "is not one study" that shows that it is "harmful," which implies to me that she means "toxic" when she says "harmful." However, in fact, at high doses it is toxic, which certainly means it is harmful, so I guess she's just straight up lying.

[DrMatt]

Right, the bit that counts for climate here is the balance. We and our ecosystems have evolved for a particular balance. We have built empires dependent on its remaining steady (e.g. exploiting land-water boundaries as transport centers with huge cities located on them), while powering those empires on equipment that shifts it a fraction of a percent--which is enough to change the game (e.g. flooding human settlements) . How it will play out is difficult to see. But people are good at denialism and many will keep it up at least as long as their personal game isn't changed.

[robinson]

At first I thought the email hacking was a fraud, then I thought it was blown out of proportion, then I read them.

Then I started looking into the whole climate science, IPCC clusterfuck, AGW idea in general.

I even ventured into blogs.

It was ugly and disturbing. Not the sort of thing a scientist should have to go through.

Now, just when I thought maybe it was all a huge misunderstanding, a bunch of malcontents and oil company shills stirring up trouble, just when I was able to slip back into my comfort zone, where scientist are the good guys and skeptics are deniers, the final straw happens.

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ticle.html

And I am like, what the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?

If the IPCC was a blog, you know, a bunch of losers sitting around writing shit, it would be like, who cares?

But this is THE panel on climate change. This is the big boys club, the United Nations, the policy changing reports, and a shitpot of money as well. Big salaries, bigger contracts.

So I now it looks like the email hacking was the Pentagon papers of this generation. It really is Climategate.

In a new and different internet sort of way.

The Watergate break in led to a lot of things. Nixon WAS a crook. He resigned in disgrace.
The Militaryindustrialcomplex was an evil bunch of bastards, the war in Vietnam was immoral, illegal and they lied about it. People went to jail, they lost power, a war ended, and the crazy people on TV who had been getting shot, mocked by the media and beat up by the cops, ended up being right.

The Climategate break in has now led to a lot more, and it looks like this is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Now the media is in on it.

But it's different, because the internet has been on it for a long time. This has become evident from actually reading the internet.

So what is the real science hidden behind the bullshit?

And is there any reasonable middle ground on this one?

This topic/post was probably done right when I became a skeptic about the claims of global warming/climate change.

Before that, here and at every other forum online, I either ignored it, or dismissed skeptics as being cranks, paid shills, or just wrong. I "just knew" the planet was fucked, we were all doomed, and things were very very bad.

This can be backed up here by my post history prior to this date, and because it is all here, anyone can check.

Not that the facts are going to matter at all, but still, it's evidence.

[robinson]

What's really interesting (probably only to me of course), is that this topic was before the record back to back blizzards that were getting ready to happen in February 2010.

That shit really sealed my fate.

[robinson]

https://web.archive.org/web/20100608005 ... tburns.jpg

That was my last post in this topic. (there was probably a different topic on climategate that the discussion moved to)