A Quick Update on "Climate Gate" Comedy: Denialist Follies, Part Trois

Superfreak said:
yes... he stated:

Most of those quotes from "scientists" are old. Most are five to ten years old, and are based on the third IPCC assessment from 2001.. It's all right there in your wiki link. Dude, the science has evolved since 2001. Your link is wildly outdated. Try again. Please try to come up with something current, and from a well established and credible scientific institution.
Click to expand...

The above is incorrect.... the majority were written in the past five years. Yes, some were older. But tell me... are you going to discard everything the fear mongers have written that is older than five years? If not, then you are a tad hypocritical...

Also... what you just stated that 'many are pre-2001'... is a bit disingenuous... the vast majority are AFTER 2001.

You proclaiming them 'right wing opinion pieces' is nothing more than your blatant attempt to disregard them. See your pathetic attempts on source #32 as a prime example of this. (not to mention your comment on source 10 asking if I had 'anything newer'... despite there being over 30 sources that were newer right there)

This is the problem with you brain dead fear mongering lemmings... you actually believe your masters when they tell you the debate is over and you parrot that sentiment over and over and over again, despite any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

OMG!

You KNOW that if I tried to pass off something from Media Matters as fact, it wouldn't matter WHO it referenced as "source material", you'd be on me for daring to use such a biased site.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
OMG!

You KNOW that if I tried to pass off something from Media Matters as fact, it wouldn't matter WHO it referenced as "source material", you'd be on me for daring to use such a biased site.
Click to expand...

you are so full of shit....

1) I am not passing the report off as FACT.... I am stating it is a report that directly refutes the fear mongers 'scientific fact'

2) nice attempt to divert from the utter ass whipping you just received.
 
Superfreak said:
This is the problem with you brain dead fear mongering lemmings... you actually believe your masters when they tell you the debate is over and you parrot that sentiment over and over and over again, despite any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...


That's really all it is. Have you ever seen Cypress or mott talk about the science and address the criticism of the statistical misuse of proxy data mated with actual 100% reliable data?

I haven't.
Nor have I seen the IPCC do such.

Where is it warmers?

We know how the unprecedented warming trend was caused, and it was indeed human caused, but not by CO2. It was done by tricks of statistics
 
Superfreak said:
you are so full of shit....

1) I am not passing the report off as FACT.... I am stating it is a report that directly refutes the fear mongers 'scientific fact'

2) nice attempt to divert from the utter ass whipping you just received.
Click to expand...

And now that you're getting schooled, the vulgarity, as usual, starts flying.

YOU stated that an opinion piece can count as fact IF it references some previously published paper and that is total garbage!

YOU claim that my pointing out many of your "references" are just opinion pieces doesn't matter.

Be honest for once...can you do that?
 
http://38.114.169.124/data/
Here's McIntyre's data repository
He's the guy who uncovered the GISS error. The scientific community validated his work and Hansen was forced to change it. Hansen never thanked or even documented the work of the person who did his job better than he did and did it for free!!! LOL

Hansen is a douchebag activist. He attends protests and has been on record saying that violence and vandalism is justified to fight global warming. LOL
Some scientist!!

The government keeps him there because he'll be an easy scapegoat when the scam finally crumbles.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And now that you're getting schooled, the vulgarity, as usual, starts flying.

YOU stated that an opinion piece can count as fact IF it references some previously published paper and that is total garbage!

YOU claim that my pointing out many of your "references" are just opinion pieces doesn't matter.

Be honest for once...can you do that?
Click to expand...

Yes. "Ass whipping" is rather vulgar, Prince Zapless.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And now that you're getting schooled, the vulgarity, as usual, starts flying.

YOU stated that an opinion piece can count as fact IF it references some previously published paper and that is total garbage!

YOU claim that my pointing out many of your "references" are just opinion pieces doesn't matter.

Be honest for once...can you do that?
Click to expand...

1) Please show us all where I stated an opinion piece can count as fact. I never stated any such nonsense. But unless it is the actual report... ALL articles on the topic are OPINION. Some are op-ed in that they are written BY the purported expert. Other articles simply QUOTE experts. You seem to disregard those sources that quoted the professionals simply because they weren't actual reports. At the same time, you ignored the ACTUAL studies in skipping through the sources.

2) You claim they are opinion pieces, when in fact the majority are articles that QUOTE professionals and their research. If you can't tell the difference you have a problem. Also, there are SOME op-ed pieces in there... just as you and Cypress post articles quoting experts and other opinion pieces from the left.

3) Keep trying to highlight these rather than the FACT that you blatantly tried to cherry pick the sources and pretend there wasn't anything relevant or valid from the wiki site. It was obvious for anyone who read the sources that you skipped over every actual report (with the exception of two that you tried to paint as 'right wing')
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why does government funding discredit scientific research. Most scientific research if publicly funded via our State University System. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
When there is specific political interest in the result and all funding depends on their result the funding of science can be questioned when it comes from that political entity. Like a study paid for by cigarette companies seeking specific results...

However, in this case Superfreak was being sarcastic. The study was government funded, the result is not in synchopathy with your desired result.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why does government funding discredit scientific research. Most scientific research if publicly funded via our State University System. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

Wow.... out of all that I posted, THAT is what you wish to comment on...

I did not state it discredited it... however, EVERY site Cypress links to IS government funded... hence the sarcasm...

now... do you wish to actually discuss the 50 page report? Or the other links I provided? Or answer ANY of the questions I posed to you?
 
Damocles said:
Not really, Theory in science is a level a bit above "tenuous" and "debate far from over". And I obviously did give it some consideration, I even called it a good hypothesis that needs some solid testing before we started issuing draconian sanctions on our own economy. The reality is, there are good reasons other than this to make some changes to how we regularly do things. If you argued on those reasons you'd likely get some cooperation rather than people constantly fighting it.
Click to expand...
You're concept of "theory" at least a "scientific theory" is not accurate. You are using "theory" in it's colloqual useage and not in its proper scientific context. A scientific theory is one hell of a lot more then something that is a step above tenuous. In fact quite the opposite is true.

"A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

But to your point, even if anthropogenic climate change was demonstrated to the point where the most skeptical accept it as fact, making any drastic changes to our economy would be controversial as hell as it's value would have to be demonstrated scientifically. That's an even tougher task then determining the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change. However, that's a completely differant discussion then the agreed upon, in general, conclusion by the scientific community supporting the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change.

To use an analogy, demonstrating the factual basis of the disease cancer is not the same as knowing the cure for cancer. This too is true about anthropogenic climate change. We may know that human consumption of fossil fuels are causing it but we don't know what an acceptable solution to the problem is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're concept of "theory" at least a "scientific theory" is not accurate. You are using "theory" in it's colloqual useage and not in its proper scientific context. A scientific theory is one hell of a lot more then something that is a step above tenuous. In fact quite the opposite is true.

"A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

But to your point, even if anthropogenic climate change was demonstrated to the point where the most skeptical accept it as fact, making any drastic changes to our economy would be controversial as hell as it's value would have to be demonstrated scientifically. That's an even tougher task then determining the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change. However, that's a completely differant discussion then the agreed upon, in general, conclusion by the scientific community supporting the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change.

To use an analogy, demonstrating the factual basis of the disease cancer is not the same as knowing the cure for cancer. This too is true about anthropogenic climate change. We may know that human consumption of fossil fuels are causing it but we don't know what an acceptable solution to the problem is.
Click to expand...
You don't read well.

My point was, when leading scientists point out that the debate is far from over it has yet to reach the level of Theory. What we have is a working hypothesis, not a theory.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're concept of "theory" at least a "scientific theory" is not accurate. You are using "theory" in it's colloqual useage and not in its proper scientific context. A scientific theory is one hell of a lot more then something that is a step above tenuous. In fact quite the opposite is true.

"A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis."
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

But to your point, even if anthropogenic climate change was demonstrated to the point where the most skeptical accept it as fact, making any drastic changes to our economy would be controversial as hell as it's value would have to be demonstrated scientifically. That's an even tougher task then determining the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change. However, that's a completely differant discussion then the agreed upon, in general, conclusion by the scientific community supporting the factual basis of anthropogenic climate change.

To use an analogy, demonstrating the factual basis of the disease cancer is not the same as knowing the cure for cancer. This too is true about anthropogenic climate change. We may know that human consumption of fossil fuels are causing it but we don't know what an acceptable solution to the problem is.
Click to expand...

1) we do NOT know that human consumption of fossil fuels is causing it

2) Funny how you continue to duck the questions posed to you... I wonder why... 'anthropogenic climate change'..... LMAO... seriously... WHAT happened to AGW? Why the change Mott?
 
Damocles said:
Mott, is it good science to have those who have already concluded and make their living off of the same conclusions "review" papers? Is it good science to have people who actually co-author the paper to "review" the papers? Is it good science to say that work is peer-reviewed when even the scientist who published the work says that the data cannot be verified as he cannot recreate the data?

None of that is good science and you know it isn't.

While my work is in applied science (being an engineer), even I can fully understand that none of those things are good scientific practice.
Click to expand...
I hear you but I have not seen the evidence to conclude that there is that level of systemic corruption in climate research. In fact most of those claims have come from right wing political critics and most, if not all of those have been refuted.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I hear you but I have not seen the evidence to conclude that there is that level of systemic corruption in climate research. In fact most of those claims have come from right wing political critics and most, if not all of those have been refuted.
Click to expand...

so essentially you are saying that you are refusing to read the 50 page report that states otherwise? That the head of climactic research at the University of Delaware is a 'right wing political critic'???

Why do you continue ignoring the questions posed to you Mott? Could it be because you know the answer will embarrass you?
 
tinfoil said:
Fucvk off, loser. Sick of your shit. I've posted the link in this thread. You've ignored it. I don't have to publish science to understand science.

Where's your climate work? Show us your peer reviewed work, dickhead. You have no right to an opinion by your own rules. You have no basis to comment on anything I might post because you are not an expert.
Click to expand...
That's what I thought. You don't know what you're talking about. Well listen to someone who has actually done scientific research and been through the peer reveiw process. Ok, science isn't politics. It don't work that way. If you submit research that has holes in it. Gaps of kowledge, your facts and evidence don't support your conclusion or if your corrupt enough to commit fraud and publish the work, your peers and the scientific community will be all over those mistakes and falsehoold like Repbulicans on a tax cut. There will be no cult of personality to support you. They will swarm over those error like flies on shit. Don't beleive that? Look at all the great scientific hoaxes ever commited. Look at who uncovered those hoaxes. SCIENTIST!! That's what makes science self correcting and that's why science works! So lay the fraud line of shit on some other lay person who will buy it. I've been doing this far to long.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's what I thought. You don't know what you're talking about. Well listen to someone who has actually done scientific research and been through the peer reveiw process. Ok, science isn't politics. It don't work that way. If you submit research that has holes in it. Gaps of kowledge, your facts and evidence don't support your conclusion or if your corrupt enough to commit fraud and publish the work, your peers and the scientific community will be all over those mistakes and falsehoold like Repbulicans on a tax cut. There will be no cult of personality to support you. They will swarm over those error like flies on shit. Don't beleive that? Look at all the great scientific hoaxes ever commited. Look at who uncovered those hoaxes. SCIENTIST!! That's what makes science self correcting and that's why science works! So lay the fraud line of shit on some other lay person who will buy it. I've been doing this far to long.
Click to expand...

It is truly amazing how you can continue answering posts like tinfoils.... but refuse to answer any questions directed at you.

I wonder why that is Mott....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I hear you but I have not seen the evidence to conclude that there is that level of systemic corruption in climate research. In fact most of those claims have come from right wing political critics and most, if not all of those have been refuted.
Click to expand...

Yeah....they have investigated themselves and found themselves innocent....

Case closed..........................................................................IDIOT !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top