Quote from v1rg0 :

Where did you grow up? Cloud Nine?

cloud cuckoo land more like

Guys, wien's left the thread. No need for personal attacks at the best of times, but most especially after they've announced they've gone and won't be back.

Quote from SamH :

I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of elderberries.

haha the fact is you berated ME for disliking the fact we have to pay for the BBC and have zero control over it's output. now you having a go at a chap for NOT caring about where his money is being spent! Make your mind up SamH.

I agree with you entirely on this topic btw, but you do need to stop being so hypocritical. How else can people take you seriously?

Quote from SamH :

Guys, wien's left the thread. No need for personal attacks at the best of times, but most especially after they've announced they've gone and won't be back.

Quote :

Originally Posted by SamH
I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of elderberries.

Quote from SamH :

Guys, wien's left the thread. No need for personal attacks at the best of times, but most especially after they've announced they've gone and won't be back.

So it's OK for someone to hit out at a group of people for being "angry conspiracy theorists" then leave the thread? My retort to that wasn't a personal attack (but his appeared to be), I wanted to try and explain my position because it appeared wien didn't understand it.

Quote from Intrepid :

You do, I trust, know the source of that insult.. right?!

I only berated you for derailment. I'm very annoyed at ALL the UK's mainstream media for their failures in this matter, but it's not the place to reiterate the stuff we've only just gone through specifically about BBC funding. It's just not relevant to this topic. Not that it's not a valid topic, but it's better suited (and well addressed) in different thread from this.

Let me wade in with my thoughts.

1) There is without doubt some kind of climate change going on. To argue against this would be stupid as history proves that the Earth warms and cools at specific key moments. Mind in the 1970’s it was all about “Global Cooling”?

2) Where there is doubt is too how much ‘Man’ has caused. We can not say 100% that there is no cause by ‘man’, yet we can not fully say how much effect ‘man’ has made. I personally think that we have caused some damage, but not as much as the doomsayers want us to think.

3) What this “climate-gate” has proven is that when ever there is facts and figures, these will be twisted to prove whatever the people who are funding the study wants to prove. Whether it be state funded studies into climate, or privately funded studies into the affects of smoking…the facts and figures will always me massaged and manipulated to prove what ever they want to prove. As the man from Guinness says…74.5% of facts are made up on the spot.

4) Al Gore is still a prick….regardless.

Quote from amp88 :

So it's OK for someone to hit out at a group of people for being "angry conspiracy theorists" then leave the thread? My retort to that wasn't a personal attack (but his appeared to be), I wanted to try and explain my position because it appeared wien didn't understand it.

The emotional trauma of the deeply religious, having their belief system and everything they've come to believe in obliterated (or at least seriously called into question - what once was sure now is not) is just too much for some to bear. It's normal, and I figure it's best just to let them have their hissy fits and go.

Quote from SamH :

You do, I trust, know the source of that insult.. right?!

I shuould known.. a Pythoner!

Quote from SamH :

I only berated you for derailment. I'm very annoyed at ALL the UK's mainstream media for their failures in this matter, but it's not the place to reiterate the stuff we've only just gone through specifically about BBC funding. It's just not relevant to this topic. Not that it's not a valid topic, but it's better suited (and well addressed) in different thread from this.

Well... start the thread!

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

Let me wade in with my thoughts.

1) There is without doubt some kind of climate change going on. To argue against this would be stupid as history proves that the Earth warms and cools at specific key moments. Mind in the 1970’s it was all about “Global Cooling”?

Yes, the evidence for global cooling, reported in the 70s, is still apparently valid. You may have heard the phrase "hide the decline". This is about the last several decades, where the raw data actually indicates global cooling. Scientists (at UEA CRU) are secretly (now made public) predicting the current cooling will continue for another 20 years at least. The evidence of a thing called the Medieval Warm Period (dubbed "Medieval Anomaly" by pro-AGWs like Mann, Briffa etc) - a worldwide average temperature increase of 6 degrees - is also available in the raw historical data. This was an extended period when global warming occurred and receded, despite mankind not doing anything to affect it. Scientists that questioned the adjustments made by the UEA CRU, and made by Michael Mann in Pennsylvania (hockey stick graph - now discredited), to conceal the MWP, found their papers being rejected by science journals and from the IPCC's AR4, despite their equal standing in the scientific community and their entitlement to be heard by their peers.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

2) Where there is doubt is too how much ‘Man’ has caused. We can not say 100% that there is no cause by ‘man’, yet we can not fully say how much effect ‘man’ has made. I personally think that we have caused some damage, but not as much as the doomsayers want us to think.

I think, at this point, the consensus is that we don't even know what the world is actually doing at the moment - warming or cooling - so to draw conclusions that man is heating up the planet is a hypothesis upon a hypothesis. That, needless to say, is far too tentative a premise to place a $5 bet on, let alone commit hundreds of $billions of our money on.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

3) What this “climate-gate” has proven is that when ever there is facts and figures, these will be twisted to prove whatever the people who are funding the study wants to prove. Whether it be state funded studies into climate, or privately funded studies into the affects of smoking…the facts and figures will always me massaged and manipulated to prove what ever they want to prove. As the man from Guinness says…74.5% of facts are made up on the spot.

I'd agree, broadly. I think the implications for the wider scientific community are quite significant. Over the last 300 years we've come to see science as the antithesis of religion (faith vs proof) or modern man's alternative to religion. What we're now realising is that the integrity of science (research, hypothesis, experimentation, conclusion, presentation) is not necessarily the thing we'd come to believe in. Several times over the last week, a number of friends involved in university research have acknowledged that the peer review process can be quite incestuous. Though it's fundamentally important, in order to ensure the integrity of research theses, this aspect of the process is often tainted.

The resistance I've met this week to the very idea that climatology may be flawed has led me to conclude one thing: No matter how much it THINKS it's rejected religion in favour of science, mankind just can't quite let go of the notion of being blindly told what to believe by its authority figures.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

4) Al Gore is still a prick….regardless.

Imagine if 2012 saw a presidential campaign of Al Gore vs Sarah Palin. Stop the world, 6Bn people wanna get off.

hey Xaotik, sorry to bring this up again (and sorry all), by try climategate again at google.com.


I'm not getting it. (although 'climate-gate' is a search word. Climate Guatemala must be a real hot topic right now).


It's also not on Bing at the moment...



(this offer may be for a limited time only)




:ufo:

Meh. I don't know what's going on there. .co.uk has never suggested "climategate". .com has now stopped again.

Google themselves say

Quote from Google :

Google has not ever removed the query [climategate] or variations of the query from Google Suggest.

Google Suggest uses a variety of algorithms in order to come up with relevant suggestions while the user is typing. We do remove certain clearly pornographic or hateful or malicious slur terms from Suggest.

And they do no evil, of course. More info here: http://searchengineland.com/of ... tories-get-too-long-30755

Yeah. Who knows.

Quote from xaotik :

(5) Amused - in which you find both the situation and the extreme polarized reactions as being yet another cliche.
(6) Weathered - in which you've seen similar situations go down in either your work circle or have read about previous such events, even of recent years, at some extent to see that it has happened before and will very likely happen again due to the nature of people.

ill go with those 2
not that anyone of the people i have to deal with here will understand

Quote from mookie427 :

I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate some sort of back-up, scientific evidence or otherwise, as to why he thinks our arguments are rubbish when we have provided all sorts of evidence, and the only evidence he has provided has been a frankly useless Venus comparison. He is the one who said we weren't entitled to hold an opinion because, unlike him, we weren't involved in 'the science', but so far there has been no 'science' demonstrated by him whatsoever.

Quote from 5haz :

The point is, if he is going to dismiss other people's views because they don't know science like he does, then he has to at least be able to back his points up with scientific knowledge.

for the (perceptually) hundedth ****ing millionth ****ing time read my ****ing posts properly before you ****ing ask me to elborate on a ****ing point i never even ****ing argued in the first ****ing place
for ****s sake

also what good could it possibly do to argue science with you 2 if you as proven more than often enough to be statistically significant cant comprehend what you read?

Well, if they wanted to censor it they would surely remove the hits it provided as a keyword as well, no? Or just completely scrub references to it from their Google News, Google Videos, etc. Are people all that reliant on the suggestion feature that if they don't see what they're expecting they cease typing it out? It's probably just a glitch, dealing with boring SEO tasks at times I've seen a few that come from antispam mechanisms and such.

Quote from Shotglass :

so... how much time have you spent working in any sort of scientific field?

You used the above to essentially counter someone else's argument, which gives the impression that you think its fine to dismiss people's opinions based on their scientific experience.

You imply that its quite normal to fiddle results to help with a phd, and it probrably is in a normal situation, but this goes beyond someone's phd, the consequences are far bigger, and so in this case it isn't acceptable at all.

Now I didn't need to spend time working in a scientific field to come to that conclusion.

Quote from Shotglass :

not that anyone of the people i have to deal with here will understand

A lot of your comments suggest to me that you think you are on some higher level, where your opinion must be accepted and never questioned by only a few people who you see as being capable of understanding and talking to you.

Sorry, but if you go posting your opinion on an internet forum, you can't pick and chose who decides to oppose you based on this and that, you have to be prepared to answer to everyone no matter how inconveniant.

Quote :

Well, if they wanted to censor it they would surely remove the hits it provided as a keyword as well, no? Or just completely scrub references to it from their Google News, Google Videos, etc. Are people all that reliant on the suggestion feature that if they don't see what they're expecting they cease typing it out? It's probably just a glitch, dealing with boring SEO tasks at times I've seen a few that come from antispam mechanisms and such.

It's a stupid move if they are subtley trying to deflect curiosity from people who may not be searching for climategate specifically (ie, they're looking for something 'climate' related). If they are, then it's only going to bring more attention to the fact that there could be something to hide. There's no hiding anything now so its double dumb, which leads one to believe it's just a glitch (unless they are double dumb, or triple smart).

Apparently Phil Jones has stepped aside as director of CRU, as investigations begin. Poor guy must have had a shocker of a week.

In other (mainstream [dead tree]) news, the story broke onto the front page of the Daily Express today. An interesting read: http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/ ... 573/Climate-change-fraud-

I just found out today that the concept of "carbon credits", with which governments trade internationally, were invented by a guy called Ken Lay. Heard of him? He was at the head of ENRON. Heard of them? LOL! Anyway, it turns out Denmark (host of the Copenhagen summit on climate change this week) is in trouble for questionable entries in their carbon credits register. Source here: http://www.cphpost.dk/news/nat ... -rife-with-co2-fraud.html (perhaps a Danish friend could give us a run down on credibility of the Copenhagen Post as a newspaper).

And at last the Independent, usually my newspaper of choice, has given a sideways acknowledgement of "climategate". Though it's not referred to the emails, documents or programming code, it has at least been forced to report on their effect on British politics. This piece is as much as I think we'll see from the Independent on the subject of climate change scepticism until its hand is forced again: http://www.independent.co.uk/n ... -environment-1832208.html

Meanwhile, over at the BBC, some more news. Phil Jones, director of the UEA CRU and author of some of the most damming emails, has stepped down. The article quotes Jones quite a bit but doesn't spend much time talking about the deeper reasons for the controversy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

Anyone got any more interesting reads?

Quote from Electrik Kar :

which leads one to believe it's just a glitch

or they simply removed it on the grounds that adding gate to anything mildly scandalous is offensively stupid

Quote from 5haz :

You say that its quite normal to fiddle results to help with a phd, and it probrably is in a normal situation, but this goes beyond someone's phd, the consequences are far bigger, and so in this case it isn't acceptable.

where have i ever said it was acceptable?
again read what i actually wrote and the posts around it that relate to that before you go around inventing posts that never existed and putting words into my mouth

Quote :

Now I didn't need to spend time working in a scientific field to come to that conclusion.

maybe not but apparently you needed someone to tell you that its really a molehill on principle and about 200 million annoyed posts to finally understand what ive been saying from the beginning

Quote :

A lot of your comments suggest to me that you think you are on some higher level, where your opinion must be accepted and never questioned by only a few people who you see as being capable of understanding and talking to you.

no but if anyone proves himself of being utterly incapeable of comprehending what i and others write i maintain the right to tell him that hes taken a wrong turn and should go play somewhere else instead of engaging in a written medium which by definition would benefit rather a lot from basic first grade reading skills

Quote from Shotglass :

or they simply removed it on the grounds that adding gate to anything mildly scandalous is offensively stupid

'Climategate' was originally posted by a blogger for humour value (that's how I read it anyway). It's simply been picked up and run with since then. I don't know of any other 'gates' currently in use, but I don't usually follow such things anyway.

Quote from Shotglass :

maybe not but apparently you needed someone to tell you that its really a molehill on principle and about 200 million annoyed posts to finally understand what ive been saying from the beginning

The problem I have (I don't want to speak for others) is the result of the behaviour more than the behaviour itself. You say it's understandable (notice I'm saying understandable and not OK) for scientists to cheat the results because they're human. I can understand your position (I don't agree with it but I understand it). Now, you've said you've seen this before and you find it funny because of polarised reactions. I'd like to ask you this: When was the last time you heard of scientists falsifying data and that falsified data being used as the basis for hundreds of billions of dollars in spending by the majority of the world's governments? The problem isn't just the fact that the scientists have falsified data...it's the end result of what happens with that falsified data. If you can't understand that then you seem unreasonable to me.

Quote from Shotglass :

where have i ever said it was acceptable?
again read what i actually wrote and the posts around it that relate to that before you go around inventing posts that never existed and putting words into my mouth

Quote from Shotglass :

methods ive witnessed on how they went about their thesis when things didnt look like they would work out in time

Yeah so scientists fiddle with results to fit their hypothesis, but is that an acceptable reason to just brush this whole thing off as insignificant and blown out of all proportion?

I've done it myself, but the only thing at stake in my case is my Geography/Geology A level grades, while what has gone on in these CRU's has worldwide consequences for everyone.

Quote from Shotglass :

no but if anyone proves himself of being utterly incapeable of comprehending what i and others write i maintain the right to tell him that hes taken a wrong turn and should go play somewhere else instead of engaging in a written medium which by definition would benefit rather a lot from basic first grade reading skills

Essentially all you seem to do is just sidestep around anyone who says something you don't like, leaving a personal insult for good measure.

You also ask others to tell you what scientific experience they have, but when they ask the same of you, you go all vague and try to get out of it.

You'd make a good politician.

Shot doesn't realise that his scientist friends tinkering with their results and climate giants like Phil Jones tinkering with their results are seperated by orders of magnitude of difference. He doesn't get it.

Quote from 5haz :

Essentially all you seem to do is just sidestep around anyone who says something you don't like, leaving a personal insult for good measure.

You also ask others to tell you what scientific experience they have, but when they ask the same of you, you go all vague and try to get out of it.

You'd make a good politician.

The problem is that you're taking him seriously instead of noting that it's him again, that he obviously doesn't have a grasp of the subject matter (i.e. doesn't know who the UEA CRU are, doesn't understand the legal implications of their actions etc), and that he's just here to take a dump on the table and leave again.

Just skip to the next post and move on.

Quote from SamH :

I think, at this point, the consensus is that we don't even know what the world is actually doing at the moment - warming or cooling - so to draw conclusions that man is heating up the planet is a hypothesis upon a hypothesis. That, needless to say, is far too tentative a premise to place a $5 bet on, let alone commit hundreds of $billions of our money on.

Agree, with that, although I do think that there has been some damage done by man. Whether this has caused warming or cooling I can't say.

Quote from SamH :

Imagine if 2012 saw a presidential campaign of Al Gore vs Sarah Palin. Stop the world, 6Bn people wanna get off.

And now the nightmare comes.......it's going to be a long night