PDA

View Full Version : Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud



bijou
02-14-2010, 04:56 AM
By now, Phil Jones of the University of East Angliaís Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should require no introduction, so letís get right to it. In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering. ... http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

PoliCon
02-14-2010, 03:46 PM
Some of us are not shocked. Wilbur will of course deny all claims.

wilbur
02-14-2010, 05:54 PM
The problem here is that you poor fools have been lied to for so long, anytime a climate scientist makes statements that are less forceful and dogmatic than balls-out, end-of-days style street corner preaching, you believe they are contradicting themselves or "admitting something".

Sorry - that's simply the right wing media template straw-man. It never has been the real thing. If you read the science, you will almost always find comments from scientists are careful, measured and overtly uncertain with varying degrees. The press, of course, glosses right over such nuance. One can blame them sure... but the idiots who believe what they say, hook line and sinker with out a single skeptical thought, are equally blameworthy.

I suggest looking at the actual interview, instead of irresponsible and misleading analysis by American Thinker - a pathetic rag by all counts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

In short, what this article is evidence of is not a backpedaling climate scientist - its evidence that climate scientists are far more reasonable and than typical denialist caricatures.

FlaGator
02-14-2010, 06:50 PM
This spin is on. He faked the data and lied about it.

Rockntractor
02-14-2010, 06:54 PM
Poor Wilbur! He keeps getting caught with his pants down, and it's cold out!:D

Constitutionally Speaking
02-14-2010, 07:36 PM
The problem here is that you poor fools have been lied to for so long, anytime a climate scientist makes statements that are less forceful and dogmatic than balls-out, end-of-days style street corner preaching, you believe they are contradicting themselves or "admitting something".

Sorry - that's simply the right wing media template straw-man. It never has been the real thing. If you read the science, you will almost always find comments from scientists are careful, measured and overtly uncertain with varying degrees. The press, of course, glosses right over such nuance. One can blame them sure... but the idiots who believe what they say, hook line and sinker with out a single skeptical thought, are equally blameworthy.

I suggest looking at the actual interview, instead of irresponsible and misleading analysis by American Thinker - a pathetic rag by all counts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#

In short, what this article is evidence of is not a backpedaling climate scientist - its evidence that climate scientists are far more reasonable and than typical denialist caricatures.


Wilbur, as someone who is intimately familiar with statistics, I have been telling you and everyone else who could hear, that the whole basis for this scam - the Mann et al hockey stick graph, is simply not valid.

PoliCon
02-14-2010, 10:13 PM
This spin is on. He faked the data and lied about it.

and wilbur is spinning like a top. :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 09:06 AM
Wilbur, as someone who is intimately familiar with statistics, I have been telling you and everyone else who could hear, that the whole basis for this scam - the Mann et al hockey stick graph, is simply not valid.

Your statement about the MBH98 reconstruction being "not valid" is at odds with the NAS position. Regardless of whatever you know about statistics, I'll take the opinion of the NAS over your opinion every single time.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:08 AM
Your statement about the MBH98 reconstruction being "not valid" is at odds with the NAS position. Regardless of whatever you know about statistics, I'll take the opinion of the NAS over your opinion every single time.

You're kidding right? That's your argument??? :rolleyes: Pathetic.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 11:13 AM
You're kidding right? That's your argument??? :rolleyes: Pathetic.

Perhaps you could um... elaborate.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:16 AM
Perhaps you could um... elaborate.

His argument is this group supports it, I like them better so no matter what your facts are - I'm gonna agree with them? Pathetic. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-15-2010, 11:23 AM
His argument is this group supports it, I like them better so no matter what your facts are - I'm gonna agree with them? Pathetic. :rolleyes:

That group happens to be the national academy of sciences... a wee bit more authoritative than CS's argument don't you think? Which basically relies on the opinion of one professors statistical analysis. CS's argument is the same type of appeal to authority - a much weaker authority, in fact.

And as I have also pointed out before - temperature reconstructions which take into account the criticisms from the report that he relies on, had no significant effect on them. So hows that?

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:39 AM
That group happens to be the national academy of sciences... a wee bit more authoritative than CS's argument don't you think? Which basically relies on the opinion of one professors statistical analysis. CS's argument is the same type of appeal to authority - a much weaker authority, in fact.

And as I have also pointed out before - temperature reconstructions which take into account the criticisms from the report that he relies on, had no significant effect on them. So hows that?

I know who the group is - and I don't care. You're making an appeal to authority rather than dealing with the facts of his argument. It's a pathetic attempt at dismissing an argument through the use of one of the shallowest and most blatant of the logical fallacies.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 11:47 AM
I know who the group is - and I don't care. You're making an appeal to authority rather than dealing with the facts of his argument. It's a pathetic attempt at dismissing an argument through the use of one of the shallowest and most blatant of the logical fallacies.

CS's argument is the same type of appeal to authority!!! He didnt do any calculations himself, he's relying on the testimony of a single statistician (not himself)!

And just so you know, its a rookie mistake to act like appeals to authority are always fallacies. They arent. And it certainly isnt practical to dismiss all authoritative opinion - unless of course you feel comfortable going to your car mechanic for heart surgery.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:53 AM
CS's argument is the same type of appeal to authority!!! He didnt do any calculations himself, he's relying on the testimony of a single statistician (not himself)!

And just so you know, its a rookie mistake to act like appeals to authority are always fallacies. They arent. And it certainly isnt practical to dismiss all authoritative opinion - unless of course you feel comfortable going to your car mechanic for heart surgery.


There is a difference between getting services - and making arguments. You might wanna learn what that difference is.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 12:02 PM
There is a difference between getting services - and making arguments. You might wanna learn what that difference is.

Do you trust your doctors opinion when he gives you a diagnosis, more so than you trust your car mechanic?

If so, you've just indulged in an appeal to authority. Ever learned anything from a textbook? Ever cited a source in the internet to make your case? Appeals to authority. Almost all of our knowledge is based upon authoritative opinion. Seriously this is basic stuff here - It sounds like you learned a fancy new term, and are too eager to use it, without a clue how to do it properly.

Revisiting the post from TNO will clear show that he did not make a fallacious appeal to authority - he simply said that he trusts in the opinion of one group, over the opinion of one man.

An appeal that takes the form of a fallacy requires one to make the claim that X is necessarily true, because authority X says it is. He didnt do that, and neither did I.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 12:04 PM
Do you trust your doctors opinion when he gives you a diagnosis, more so than you trust your car mechanic?

If so, you've just indulged in an appeal to authority. Ever learned anything from a textbook? Ever cited a source in the internet to make your case? Appeals to authority. Almost all of our knowledge is based upon authoritative opinion. Seriously this is basic stuff here - It sounds like you learned a fancy new term, and are too eager to use it, without a clue how to do it properly.

Revisiting the post from TNO will clear show that he did not make a fallacious appeal to authority - he simply said that he trusts in the opinion of one group, over the opinion of one man.

An appeal that takes the form of a fallacy requires one to make the claim that X is true, because authority X says it is. He didnt do that, and neither did I.

JACKASS - We're not talking about car mechanics and doctors here. We're talking about two different kinds of doctors. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-15-2010, 12:06 PM
JACKASS - We're not talking about car mechanics and doctors here. We're talking about two different kinds of doctors. :rolleyes:

So what? Whose cancer diagnosis are you going to trust more? An oncologist or a dentist? In this case, we have climate scientists, and many statisticians and many other scientists of all stripes versus - one statistician.

And one statistician whose findings had no significant impact on temperature reconstructions when used....

FlaGator
02-15-2010, 12:08 PM
So what? Whose cancer diagnosis are you going to trust more? An oncologist or a dentist? In this case, we have climate scientists, and many statisticians and many other scientists of all stripes versus - one statistician.


I'm going to get a second and maybe third opinion.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 12:11 PM
So what? Whose cancer diagnosis are you going to trust more? An oncologist or a dentist? In this case, we have climate scientists, and many statisticians and many other scientists of all stripes versus - one statistician.

You mean the oncologist or the homeopathologist right? Two doctors with different takes on the same issue. But I wouldn't want you to be reasonable in your criticsms of dissent so you go right ahead and continue couch the argument in ludicrous terms. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-15-2010, 12:16 PM
You mean the oncologist or the homeopathologist right? Two doctors with different takes on the same issue. But I wouldn't want you to be reasonable in your criticsms of dissent so you go right ahead and continue couch the argument in ludicrous terms. :rolleyes:

Good grief - we arent debating the analogy here. The point of it is, that you abused the fallacy of the appeal from authority. You arent going to rescue yourself by nitpicking an analogy to death. Another rookie mistake.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 01:07 PM
Good grief - we arent debating the analogy here. The point of it is, that you abused the fallacy of the appeal from authority. You arent going to rescue yourself by nitpicking an analogy to death. Another rookie mistake.

I'm not the one who made the appeal to authority so. . . . :rolleyes: But rest assured, when you choose to do so I will be happy to poison the well. :cool:

wilbur
02-15-2010, 01:14 PM
I'm not the one who made the appeal to authority so. . . . :rolleyes: But rest assured, when you choose to do so I will be happy to poison the well. :cool:

<facepalm> And we're back to square one.

Perhaps you'll believe wikipedia - or have the global warming conspirators gotten to the entry on "Arguments of Authority" too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority



On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.


And once again I must bludgeon you over the head with the fact that CS's argument - the one TNO was responding too - is an appeal to authority!!! So, um... going to start "poisoning that well" too? Doubtful.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 01:35 PM
<facepalm> And we're back to square one.

Perhaps you'll believe wikipedia - or have the global warming conspirators gotten to the entry on "Arguments of Authority" too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority



And once again I must bludgeon you over the head with the fact that CS's argument - the one TNO was responding too - is an appeal to authority!!! So, um... going to start "poisoning that well" too? Doubtful.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Kathleen727/Welcome%20Sigs/Smileys/YawnSmiley.gif

In case you were wondering - I've opted for the appeal to ridicule.

wilbur
02-15-2010, 01:42 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/Kathleen727/Welcome%20Sigs/Smileys/YawnSmiley.gif

In case you were wondering - I've opted for the appeal to ridicule.

Problem is, it isnt me you're making look foolish.

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 01:58 PM
Problem is, it isnt me you're making look foolish.

Dude - I don't have to MAKE you look foolish! You do a fine job of that all on your own just like all elitists. :rolleyes:

Swampfox
02-15-2010, 11:41 PM
In this case, we have climate scientists, and many statisticians and many other scientists of all stripes versus - one statistician.

There are many scientists of "all stripes" that don't believe in AGW. Here's a small sampling of 31,486 (9,029 with P.hd's) of them in the U.S. alone.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Rockntractor
02-15-2010, 11:44 PM
Problem is, it isnt me you're making look foolish.

I could post another poll Wilbur. For foolish you'd win hands down!

The Night Owl
02-15-2010, 11:53 PM
There are many scientists of "all stripes" that don't believe in AGW. Here's a small sampling of 31,486 (9,029 with P.hd's) of them in the U.S. alone.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

Oh, God! Not the OISM petition again!

I once picked a random name from the OISM petition...

Hugh Berckmueller
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=B

As it turns out, Mr. Berckmueller is an ophthalmologist.

Dr. Hugh Berckmueller MD (http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/virginia/ophthalmology/Berckmueller_Hugh.html)
Ophthalmologist - Newport News, Virginia

I'm sure that Mr. Berckmueller is a nice fellow but... I really don't care to know what ophthalmologists think about climate change. And, nevermind the fact that the OISM petition was so haphazardly compiled that one of the Spice Girls (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308) managed to get on it. And, nevermind the fact that people who signed the OISM petition were tricked (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=1) into thinking that they were signing something which had received the endorsement of the NAS.

31,486 scientists my ass.

Rockntractor
02-15-2010, 11:58 PM
Oh, God! Not the OISM petition again!

I once picked a random name from the OISM petition and checked it out. The result:

Dr. Hugh Berckmueller MD (http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/virginia/ophthalmology/Berckmueller_Hugh.html)
Ophthalmologist - Newport News, Virginia

Yes, I really want to know what ophthalmologists think about climate change. And, nevermind the fact that the OISM petition was so haphazardly compiled that one of the Spice Girls (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308) managed to get on it.

31,486 scientists my ass.

:rolleyes:
So you got one out of 31,000 big deal. You will have to do better than that, were not democrats!

PoliCon
02-15-2010, 11:59 PM
given that 'climate science' is a new invention - and all the current experts are people trained in other fields are you sure you wanna poke fun at that list?

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 12:06 AM
Oh, God! Not the OISM petition again!

I once picked a random name from the OISM petition and checked it out. The result:

Dr. Hugh Berckmueller MD (http://www.ucomparehealthcare.com/drs/virginia/ophthalmology/Berckmueller_Hugh.html)
Ophthalmologist - Newport News, Virginia

Yes, I really want to know what ophthalmologists think about climate change. And, nevermind the fact that the OISM petition was so haphazardly compiled that one of the Spice Girls (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308) managed to get on it. And, nevermind the fact that people who signed the OISM petition were tricked (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605?currentPage=1) into thinking that they were signing something which had received the endorsement of the NAS.

31,486 scientists my ass.

You have 31,485 more to debunk. I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding some other questionable ones in there. However, many others are legitimate. The point is that there is hardly a consensus on AGW.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 12:09 AM
given that 'climate science' is a new invention - and all the current experts are people trained in other fields are you sure you wanna poke fun at that list?

Just the fact that he is defending global warming proves he is either a drooling fool or complicit in the scam. Either way he is not worth discussing anything more difficult than how to tie your shoes!

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:09 AM
So you got one out of 31,000 big deal. You will have to do better than that, were not democrats!

I'll pick another name at random from the OISM petition:

Gene O Naugle
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=N

Gene O Naugle, veterninarian
http://www.netpets.org/dogs/vets/colorado.html

What an amazing list of scientists!

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 12:11 AM
I'll pick another name at random from the OISM petition:

Gene O Naugle
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=N

Gene O Naugle, veterninarian
http://www.netpets.org/dogs/vets/colorado.html

What an amazing list of scientists!

Probably your family doctor!

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 12:18 AM
I'll pick another name at random from the OISM petition:

Gene O Naugle
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php?run=N

Gene O Naugle, veterninarian
http://www.netpets.org/dogs/vets/colorado.html

What an amazing list of scientists!

There are scientists from all fields on there including climatologists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, geologists, environmental scientists, statisticians so on and so forth. But hey, focus on what you want to make you feel better.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:25 AM
There are scientists from all fields on there including climatologists, atmospheric scientists, meteorologists, geologists, environmental scientists, statisticians so on and so forth. But hey, focus on what you want to make you feel better.

Right. We can totally trust the authenticity of a list which once included Dr. Geri Halliwell, PhD.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 12:30 AM
The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.

The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely sacrificed.

The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way. Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like, ‘no-science’!
The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have the coveted Peace Prize.

But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits, nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course on climatology.
You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 12:35 AM
Right. We can totally trust the authenticity of a list which once included Dr. Geri Halliwell, PhD.

a name most likely inserted by a AGW proponent since you guys have proven at all levels that you will do anything - tell any lie to get your way.

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 12:35 AM
Right. We can totally trust the authenticity of a list which once included Dr. Geri Halliwell, PhD.

So some joker filled out a false petition and it fell through the cracks for awhile before they caught it and corrected the mistake? So what? That proves nothing. You're take a cop out approach.

Anyway, I'm skeptical of the petition myself. I would never put absolute trust in any petition. I only posted it in response this statement:


In this case, we have climate scientists, and many statisticians and many other scientists of all stripesversus - one statistician.

There is not a unified consensus on AGW. That's all I'm saying. If you want to debate the merits of the science on AGW, fine. Go ahead. Just don't say "scientific consensus" and then ignore any contrary information when no such consensus exists.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:40 AM
There is not a unified consensus on AGW. That's all I'm saying. If you want to debate the merits of the science on AGW, fine. Go ahead. Just don't say "scientific consensus" and then ignore any contrary information when no such consensus exists.

Wake me up when one of the major scientific institutions reverses its position on global warming or climate change.

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 12:46 AM
I don't trust doctors or dentists, I hire them just like I do auto mechanics; based on whether I think they have a boat payment due. You know, like politicians hire scientists these days?

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 12:47 AM
Wake me up when one of the major scientific institutions reverses its position on global warming or climate change. So you believe science is only valid when it's on behalf of an institution? How about those institutions that rely on grant money and therefore have a vested financial interest in over-sensationalizing their findings?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 12:50 AM
Wake me up when one of the major scientific institutions reverses its position on global warming or climate change.

Why would they? They have tenure to gain or maintain, grants to retain, and boat payments are a pain. How about you tell me when the major scientific institutions come up with a falsifying metric for AGW. I haven't seen one yet. A theory without one is better known as an agenda.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 01:09 AM
How about you tell me when the major scientific institutions come up with a falsifying metric for AGW.

It really can't imagine that AGW will continue to be taken seriously if predictions fail.

Rockntractor
02-16-2010, 01:11 AM
It really can't imagine that AGW will continue to be taken seriously if predictions fail.

What really can't imagine?

Articulate_Ape
02-16-2010, 01:23 AM
It really can't imagine that AGW will continue to be taken seriously if predictions fail.

The predictions have begun failing already. As has the foundation of the "science" that supported those predictions. Yet the wagons keep circling around the chuck wagon. Tell me. What has the "consensus" ( a political term, rather than scientific one) set out as the metric for falsification? What exactly has to happen whereby the esteemed experts will risk their livelihoods and reputations and say, "Hell's bells, we were wrong. Never mind"?

Hmm?

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 01:55 AM
The predictions have begun failing already.

The predictions have begun to fail? Weasel words... unless you have a crystal ball.


As has the foundation of the "science" that supported those predictions.

http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/HansenABC-small.jpg

PoliCon
02-16-2010, 02:27 AM
The predictions have begun to fail? Weasel words... unless you have a crystal ball.



http://www.cobybeck.com/illconsidered/HansenABC-small.jpg

www.cobybeck.com

are you seriously using a photographers website as a source?

expat-pattaya
02-16-2010, 08:56 AM
Well, I am not a scientist. Nor do I have an education from a major institution of higher learning. But here is how this "guy on the street" views the deal.

I am of the belief that the world might be undergoing a warming trend. I am not certain that it is the fault of man, nor am I certain that it is going to continue. And I don't believe the data is clear enough to prove the claims that it is caused by man.

What I am certain of is that for the last several years there has been a coordinated attempt by the "global warming is manmade" crowd to END THE DEBATE. That is bullshit. And now, lots of scientists that were making confident bold statements of fact are back pedaling. And many scientists with opposing views are coming forward.

This "guy on the street" can buy some of how it happened. But here is what I don't buy. I don't buy that the data is in with enough certainty to begin the kind of programs that damage our economy like cap and trade. And who profits from it? How dies this reduce emissions and does it even reduce global warming? I smell a rat.

And I suspect my opinion is shared widely now. You see, if you are going to make "save the planet" like claims and warnings then you damn sure better not be hiding or manipulating data. And you dan sure better be open to debate on the issue. And you damn sure better not ask us all to pay a tax on everything we do for your theory and then not see how that tax saves the planet anyway.

Anyhow, that's my unscientific view on it.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-16-2010, 09:40 AM
Wake me up when one of the major scientific institutions reverses its position on global warming or climate change.


Don't look for that!!!! They need the cash that this fraud brings in. They have a vested interest in continuing the hoax. They will fight it until the bitter end.

wilbur
02-16-2010, 09:53 AM
Don't look for that!!!! They need the cash that this fraud brings in. They have a vested interest in continuing the hoax. They will fight it until the bitter end.

And there certainly aren't any vested interests among the all the good folk on the other side of this issue. Nope, none at all.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 09:56 AM
And there certainly aren't any vested interests among the all the good folk on the other side of this issue. Nope, none at all.

So of both sides have vested interests then why do you choose one over the other when the data may be skewed?

Big Guy
02-16-2010, 10:10 AM
The only data I need to de-bunk the global warming nut's;

1. It's friggin COLD out side.
2. It's friggin SNOWING out side.
3. It's friggin COLD out side.
4. I live in the friggin south, it's not supposed to be this COLD out side.

Usually in February I walk around with a long sleeve shirt and possible a thin jacket. I don't need a Phd to figure out that this global warming stuff is a load of crap.:cool:

wilbur
02-16-2010, 10:18 AM
So of both sides have vested interests then why do you choose one over the other when the data may be skewed?

The same reason I trust the American Cancer Society over the tobacco companies regarding the correlation between cancer and cigarettes ( as an aside, I hope you realize that many of the same people who worked for the tobacco industry in a capacity to muddy the waters over that issue now work in that same capacity for anti-global warming lobbies).

I trust the science, because the science really is open for anyone to see, despite the fraudulent claims that its locked away and hidden or lost. Its just that most don't look any further than Rush Limbaugh or a news byte from the AP for their global warming information.

wilbur
02-16-2010, 10:18 AM
The only data I need to de-bunk the global warming nut's;

1. It's friggin COLD out side.
2. It's friggin SNOWING out side.
3. It's friggin COLD out side.
4. I live in the friggin south, it's not supposed to be this COLD out side.

Usually in February I walk around with a long sleeve shirt and possible a thin jacket. I don't need a Phd to figure out that this global warming stuff is a load of crap.:cool:

If there was ever any doubt you were a fool, you just removed it....

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 10:27 AM
The same reason I trust the American Cancer Society over the tobacco companies regarding the correlation between cancer and cigarettes ( as an aside, I hope you realize that many of the same people who worked for the tobacco industry in a capacity to muddy the waters over that issue now work in that same capacity for anti-global warming lobbies).

I trust the science, because the science really is open for anyone to see, despite the fraudulent claims that its locked away and hidden or lost. Its just that most don't look any further than Rush Limbaugh or a news byte from the AP for their global warming information.

Fraudulent claims? Phil Jones admits that he was shoddy in his record keeping and has lost data that supports much of his assertions? The IPCC as admitted that they ignored corrective data for their report on the Himalayas and issued a report that was basically a false claim. To clarify your analogy, the pro AGW is the tobacco industry.

Big Guy
02-16-2010, 10:35 AM
If there was ever any doubt you were a fool, you just removed it....

Thanks, comming from you I take that as a compliment. :D

It's friggin COLD out, that is the same as warm right? :D

wilbur
02-16-2010, 10:36 AM
Fraudulent claims? Phil Jones admits that he was shoddy in his record keeping and has lost data that supports much of his assertions?

For goodness sake try reading his actual interview instead of the distilled and hyped up editorials that come your way through the skeptic press.



The IPCC as admitted that they ignored corrective data for their report on the Himalayas and issued a report that was basically a false claim. To clarify your analogy, the pro AGW is the tobacco industry.

Uh, once again - I have seen as many scientists openly admitting that this was an error and suggesting constructive ways in which to avoid ones like this in the future - though, its been absurdly overplayed in the press, by the same journalists who get caught lying again and again. It was not "a central claim" as they have been saying, nor even was in the report that went to policy makers.

Yes, it was an error - in a 500 page volume that took years to assemble. Proportion has simply ceased to exist here...

Edit: Here's another shocking revelation - there are probably more errors yet to be discovered in the reports (theyve been looking hard) - something of that magnitude simply cannot be constructed without them.

FlaGator
02-16-2010, 12:04 PM
For goodness sake try reading his actual interview instead of the distilled and hyped up editorials that come your way through the skeptic press.



Uh, once again - I have seen as many scientists openly admitting that this was an error and suggesting constructive ways in which to avoid ones like this in the future - though, its been absurdly overplayed in the press, by the same journalists who get caught lying again and again. It was not "a central claim" as they have been saying, nor even was in the report that went to policy makers.

Yes, it was an error - in a 500 page volume that took years to assemble. Proportion has simply ceased to exist here...

Edit: Here's another shocking revelation - there are probably more errors yet to be discovered in the reports (theyve been looking hard) - something of that magnitude simply cannot be constructed without them.

I did read. Again your posts assume a lot as well as your faith in those who are proven unfaithful.

You just can't stand that your on the wrong side of the fence for this one and that those you have trust in have been shown to be untrustworthy.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:08 PM
www.cobybeck.com

are you seriously using a photographers website as a source?

The source of the graph is NASA GISS (I thought everyone would be familiar with this graph). I just posted an image of the graph from the first place I found it.

Anyway, since you're so worried about fraud, you might want to read the following:


Climate Fraudit
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: August 29, 2006 1:20 PM, by Tim Lambert

The graph below shows the predictions of James Hansen's 1988 climate model overlaid (in blue) with observed temperatures. Hansen's scenarios B and C have turned out to be very good predictions of what actually happened.

Of course, it is an article of faith amongst the global warming skeptics that the models are wrong, so what do they do?

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2006/08/hansen%20with%20hadcrut.jpg

Well, there are only two things you can do to make Hansen look bad -- you can misrepresent the results of his model, or you can misrepresent the instrumental record.

The first approach is the one taken by Pat Michaels, who dishonestly erased scenarios B and C from Hansen's graph. The second approach is the one taken by Willis Eschenbach over at Climate Audit. If you move your mouse over the figure above, you can see Eschenbach's version. By doctoring the instrumental measurements so that they were all lower, he makes it look like Hansen's model predicted more warming that what was actually observed.

The trick Eschenbach used was to use a single year for the baseline instead of the thirty year average that is normally used. Yes, it's another version of the disingenous baseline game that produced all those bogus "global warming ended in 1998" claims. Given the year to year variability of climate, by choosing the right year to use as a baseline you can manufacture almost any result you want.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php#

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:19 PM
Thanks, comming from you I take that as a compliment. :D

It's friggin COLD out, that is the same as warm right? :D

Now that you're figured out the difference between warm and cold, perhaps you should try to figure out the difference between weather and climate.

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 12:25 PM
What I am certain of is that for the last several years there has been a coordinated attempt by the "global warming is manmade" crowd to END THE DEBATE. That is bullshit. And now, lots of scientists that were making confident bold statements of fact are back pedaling. And many scientists with opposing views are coming forward.

Most of the certitude in the AGW debate is on the denier side. Take a look at the results of a poll I took on a site I frequent:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=40064

None of the AGW believers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is not settled. Most of the AGW deniers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is settled.

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 12:34 PM
And there certainly aren't any vested interests among the all the good folk on the other side of this issue. Nope, none at all.

Good point. Be skeptical of analysis from any scientist with a vested interest in the outcome. In my field, I've dealt with cases where data was compiled by institutions on behalf of oil companies and their findings was that benzene was not carcinogenic. Other scientists looked at the same data set and by arguing that some of their assumptions were invalid (such as the inclusion of workers that were in fields with limited exposure or were working too far away from the source of the exposure), came to the conclusion that there was a statistically significant link between benzene exposure at certain ppms and AML. Different scientists funded by organizations with different agendas came to opposite conclusions from the same data set. Amazing how that works.

The point is that healthy skepticism is good. Look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. Unfortunately, a lot of the original data has been misplaced. That's a big red flag for me because I've seen first hand how easily scientific data can be skewed to fit an agenda. But I'll respect anyone who draws their own conclusions from the data.

Sonnabend
02-16-2010, 05:28 PM
Now that you're figured out the difference between warm and cold, perhaps you should try to figure out the difference between weather and climate.Warm climate = hot weather cold climate = cold weather

AGW = climate change = bullshit.

For them, the science is bullshit as lie after lie has been exposed.

Constitutionally Speaking
02-16-2010, 05:57 PM
Now that you're figured out the difference between warm and cold, perhaps you should try to figure out the difference between weather and climate.


I seem to recall a LOT of this type of reasoning in reverse making the news and not one AGW proponent ever complained then!

The Night Owl
02-16-2010, 06:32 PM
I seem to recall a LOT of this type of reasoning in reverse making the news and not one AGW proponent ever complained then!

Wow! What an incisive comment. How is one supposed to respond to this? By challenging your memory?

Swampfox
02-16-2010, 10:44 PM
Most of the certitude in the AGW debate is on the denier side. Take a look at the results of a poll I took on a site I frequent:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=40064

None of the AGW believers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is not settled. Most of the AGW deniers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is settled.


View Poll Results: Select the statement which best describes your position on climate change.
I feel certain that human activities are the primary cause of climate change. 0 0%
I feel certain that human activities are not the primary cause of climate change. 6 31.58%
I feel that human activities are probably the primary cause of climate change. 9 47.37%
I feel that human activities are probably not the primary cause of climate change. 3 15.79%
I feel certain that climate change is not occurring. 0 0%
I feel that climate change is probably not occurring. 1 5.26%

You cited an unscientific internet poll with 19 respondents. Are you serious?

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 12:19 AM
You cited an unscientific internet poll with 19 respondents. Are you serious?

The results were the same at NU and another forum. I see no reason to think that the deniers I come across on Internet forums aren't typical.

Rockntractor
02-17-2010, 12:26 AM
The results were the same at NU and another forum. I see no reason to think that the deniers I come across on Internet forums aren't typical.
Do you guys have your own heaven too? What do you call it when a "denier" comes to believe in the faith of the global warming, Are they saved?

Sonnabend
02-17-2010, 06:25 AM
I see no reason to think that the deniers I come across on Internet forums aren't typical.

As in "they all listen to Rush and dont have minds of their own?"

Grow the fuck UP...they lied.

Admit it.

wilbur
02-17-2010, 09:23 AM
Wilbur, as someone who is intimately familiar with statistics, I have been telling you and everyone else who could hear, that the whole basis for this scam - the Mann et al hockey stick graph, is simply not valid.

So, as someone who is intimately familiar with statistics, when are you going to explain to these poor folk what "statistically-significant at the 95% confidence level" means?

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 10:17 AM
Do you guys have your own heaven too? What do you call it when a "denier" comes to believe in the faith of the global warming, Are they saved?

I don't use the term denier derisively. It's shorthand. I really don't want to have to type out "people who dismiss the possibility that climate change is the result of human activities" every time I refer to... um... people who dismiss the possibility that climate change is the result of human activities. If you have a better term then lay it on me.

Swampfox
02-17-2010, 01:45 PM
The results were the same at NU and another forum. I see no reason to think that the deniers I come across on Internet forums aren't typical.

I'll say it again:
You cited an unscientific internet poll with 19 respondents. Are you serious?

If you think that's legitimate then I can't take you seriously.

The Night Owl
02-17-2010, 03:56 PM
I'll say it again:
You cited an unscientific internet poll with 19 respondents. Are you serious?

If you think that's legitimate then I can't take you seriously.

I haven't claimed that the poll is scientific but there it is anyway.

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 04:35 PM
I don't use the term denier derisively. It's shorthand. I really don't want to have to type out "people who dismiss the possibility that climate change is the result of human activities" every time I refer to... um... people who dismiss the possibility that climate change is the result of human activities. If you have a better term then lay it on me.


"People who weren't born yesterday?"

Swampfox
02-17-2010, 04:56 PM
I haven't claimed that the poll is scientific but there it is anyway.I just polled the people in my house and they unanimously said your poll is utterly pointless. My poll is about as meaningful as your poll.

djones520
02-17-2010, 05:10 PM
Most of the certitude in the AGW debate is on the denier side. Take a look at the results of a poll I took on a site I frequent:

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=40064

None of the AGW believers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is not settled. Most of the AGW deniers feel certain that they're right. For them, the science is settled.

And I've polled 30 meteorologists at my work center and they all believe AGW is a crock of shit.

Rockntractor
02-17-2010, 08:50 PM
I just polled all seven of my dogs. When I asked them if there was global warming they wagged their tails, when I asked them if their was no warming they wagged their tails. I'm going to cherry pick the data and go with the no vote. That's okay isn't it?:confused:

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 09:10 PM
I just polled all seven of my dogs. When I asked them if there was global warming they wagged their tails, when I asked them if their was no warming they wagged their tails. I'm going to cherry pick the data and go with the no vote. That's okay isn't it?:confused:

Just for the record, I waterboarded my wife's dog and he said "global warming" and "bacon" are pronounced the same in their language. I just thought that I would pass that bit of "need to know" intelligence on. I'm good that way.

Gingersnap
02-17-2010, 10:13 PM
Just for the record, I waterboarded my wife's dog and he said "global warming" and "bacon" are pronounced the same in their language. I just thought that I would pass that bit of "need to know" intelligence on. I'm good that way.

Thanks a bunch! I was just getting ready to waterboard the cat over a bacon-related global warming issue. You guys cleared the whole thing up for me. :)

Articulate_Ape
02-17-2010, 10:17 PM
It's what we do, madam. It's our job.