U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:01 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,542 posts, read 31,944,414 times
Reputation: 9418

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Oh, I see. Complete denial of the facts, even when you have read their very own words.

Oh, that's right! You haven't read them, don't want to read them and don't care what they say. You are still a believer, even though you have been duped, which was just confirmed by this treasure trove of incriminating evidence.
What facts? All we got is the comments and personal opinions of programmer, and I didn't see any facts. Do you really think that a climate scientist did the coding and added the comments himself. LOL. They might write up the requirement specks, but the programming is left to coders. He can comment on data from new Australian sites all he wants, but that's all it is: comments of a computer programmer.

What exactly am I am believer of? I have never even seen their data, so I really can't be a believer of something I haven't seen. I am only commenting here because you guys are being taken on a major ride. You think you have evidence of something, but when you are asked to present your proof, you always point to some comments made by a computer programmer
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,542 posts, read 31,944,414 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Disagree with the code please and give me a logical reason why your disagreement is properly supported.

The e-mails are fluff in the larger scheme of things and honestly only those who have been following the issue closely understand the actual content and meaning of them. To the laymen, the excuses given seem like valid explanations.

It is the commented code and accounts within the data files to which the real issue lies. It is here where we can validate the intent in the e-mails. This is the key and this is exactly what is being ignored in the media.
I am still waiting for someone to point out the lines of code they see as proof that GW is a hoax. How many times do I have to ask ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:06 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,086,559 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
And you call that proof of something. Do you mind pointing out the lines which proves that global warming is a hoax.

LOL.

A thief steals e-mails about a software development issues and jumps into the conclusion that global warming is a hoax. And you call that PROOF?!?!?!? Sheeeshhhh man.
Ok, so first its a scam. Then its just comments, no code, now you accept there is code, but claim it doesn't explain anything.

I thought you had 20 years of experience in programming? I hope you know HTML doesn't count, its a meta language.

You asked for it, I gave it. So far, your contribution to this discussion has been fallacious, you need to recover your credibility, not I.

Your ignorance of this topic is astounding. /sigh
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:07 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,086,559 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
I am still waiting for someone to point out the lines of code they see as proof that GW is a hoax. How many times do I have to ask ?
I provided the code as support, you claim it doesn't support the comment made. By all means, explain why. Get with it veteran!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:12 PM
 
2,106 posts, read 1,139,956 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Oh, I see. Complete denial of the facts, even when you have read their very own words.

Oh, that's right! You haven't read them, don't want to read them and don't care what they say. You are still a believer, even though you have been duped, which was just confirmed by this treasure trove of incriminating evidence.
Funny you accuse me of not reading when I just told you 2 posts ago that I read through some of it.

Whatever.

Some folks are so misinformed that they don't even grasp that if they got in their cars, and drove straight up into the sky (were it possible), at highway speed, you'd be out of our atmosphere in less than an hour. It's not nearly as vast and self-healing as some want to believe.

ONE Volcano, ~70,000 years ago, nearly wiped us all out. Which is why we (humans) are all so genetically close, as compared to other species, because very few of us survived.

So if one volcanic event can disrupt the atmosphere and ecosystem that much, for a long period of time (volcanic winter), what do you think nearly 200 years of (constant and exponentially increasing) burning of fossil fuels is doing?

Anyway, time for me to go back to letting my eyes glaze over when I see your posts. All they ever boil down to is "I am right and you are stupid" and they rely very heavily on what are often times dubious links. I could constantly post thousands of links and jump to conclusions too, if I had an agenda and needed other people to make my arguments for me, but you see, my degree is in a field very closely related to this subject, so I am able to actually interpret some of the data for myself, and formulate some rational conclusions, without relying on scare tactics.

I honestly don't know how some of you manage to participate in discussions in real life without having internet links (crutch) to rely upon. that's not to say that sources are a bad idea - but quantity does not quality make.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,542 posts, read 31,944,414 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Ok, so first its a scam. Then its just comments, no code, now you accept there is code, but claim it doesn't explain anything.

I thought you had 20 years of experience in programming? I hope you know HTML doesn't count, its a meta language.

You asked for it, I gave it. So far, your contribution to this discussion has been fallacious, you need to recover your credibility, not I.

Your ignorance of this topic is astounding. /sigh
When did I say there is no code??? Of course ther is code in a computer application????? I hate ut when people lie in my face

For the third time, show me the code which you insist proves that GW is a hoax. Show me the lines, and explain to me how they prove your point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
58,542 posts, read 31,944,414 times
Reputation: 9418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
I provided the code as support, you claim it doesn't support the comment made. By all means, explain why. Get with it veteran!
Sorry, but you don't get to make accusations and then demand others to prove them wrong. There is nothing suspicious in the code. I have asked you three times to show me the lines of code you think prove something, and you have refused to do so, therefore I conclude you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are simply here to parrot your handlers talking points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:20 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,086,559 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
What facts? All we got is the comments and personal opinions of programmer, and I didn't see any facts. Do you really think that a climate scientist did the coding and added the comments himself. LOL. They might write up the requirement specks, but the programming is left to coders. He can comment on data from new Australian sites all he wants, but that's all it is: comments of a computer programmer.

What exactly am I am believer of? I have never even seen their data, so I really can't be a believer of something I haven't seen. I am only commenting here because you guys are being taken on a major ride. You think you have evidence of something, but when you are asked to present your proof, you always point to some comments made by a computer programmer
Here is your problem. First, you were ignorant of the issues in the first place, so all of this seems alien to you and you can't figure out why this is significant. You should have paid attention a bit more in the many threads concerning the flaws in replication with Jones, Briffa, Mann, Esper, Santer, etc...

If you had been paying attention back then, you would realize that the questions they had were concerning specific divergence found with replication of the findings made by the above.

You would also understand that applying standard technique in the analysis would not reproduce the results claimed and it took much analysis playing with the data and methodology to find a match. They attempted numerous requests of the original data and methodology to assist in this issue, but were refused (FOI scandal).

They eventually were able to replicate on their own and McKitrick and McIntyre published their findings on Mann's MBH 98/99 showing that his methodology was skewed and his manipulation of the data as well.

These are the issues (among many many more) to which this issue lies. With that precursory of knowledge, now looking at the e-mails, the code comments and the code specifically, they see "HOW" they were coming to their findings and "WHY" it was conflicting with proper analysis.

That is, they were manipulating the data by using improper methods to hide divergence which indicated that their hypothesis was incorrect.

You can be obtuse all you like, but this won't change the facts of the issue, though it will change any credible opinions of your assessments, which at this point, is zero for many here atm.

Though you are welcome to earn back some respect by simply discussing the data and why exactly you think it is invalid. That at least would bring you to a position where people might think you have more than fallacious arguments in your bag of tricks (and when I say trick, I mean real trick, not a clever application of climate science). /boggle

Last edited by Nomander; 11-25-2009 at 10:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:23 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,086,559 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Sorry, but you don't get to make accusations and then demand others to prove them wrong. There is nothing suspicious in the code. I have asked you three times to show me the lines of code you think prove something, and you have refused to do so, therefore I conclude you don't have a clue what you are talking about and are simply here to parrot your handlers talking points.
Do I have to read for you too? look, you were the one who claimed they were this 20 year veteran in programming. The code is there, it is documented.

You have yet to offer anything to this discussion. I am tired of wasting my time as it is obvious you are simply playing games here. Read the code, respond back to it and I will enter in discussion. I am not going to potty train you. Read the code.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-25-2009, 10:25 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,086,559 times
Reputation: 2606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
When did I say there is no code??? Of course ther is code in a computer application????? I hate ut when people lie in my face

For the third time, show me the code which you insist proves that GW is a hoax. Show me the lines, and explain to me how they prove your point.
Show me the comments, there are no comments!

Show me the code, there is no "hard code"!

Show me the lines and explain it bit by bit to me, there is no evidence!

Play stupid for someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top