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.
Given that scientists with years of training and experiences can misinterpret evidence I can only imagine just how wrong an aroused and ignorant public can become if misleading date is released out of context.
Given that scientists with years of training and experiences can misinterpret evidence I can only imagine just how wrong an aroused and ignorant public can become if misleading date is released out of context.
I would be kicked out of my doctoral program in a heartbeat if I fudged my empirical data in this way.
Given that scientists with years of training and experiences can misinterpret evidence I can only imagine just how wrong an aroused and ignorant public can become if misleading date is released out of context.
Have you read any of the emails? They are really quite disturbing as they show just how deceitful this little cabal has operated for years.
Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there."
Do you think the above is ethical behavior?
Why do they feel the need to "pad" editorial boards with people that believe as they do? If the "science" behind their claims was legitimate, they wouldn't need such tactics.
Given that scientists with years of training and experiences can misinterpret evidence I can only imagine just how wrong an aroused and ignorant public can become if misleading date is released out of context.
Yet have you even commented on the posts where I have directly responded concerning these claims or where others have? Look back and find my post on "Mikes Nature Trick". It shows that the "out of context" claim is bogus spin. Do you have anything to respond to that? Can you explain why the code itself is documented with such discrepancies? How does padding the results to smooth out and avoid divergence anything but a trick? How does calling the term "trick" "clever" change the fact that their approach is a obvious attempt to adjust for bias? See, if you knew anything about the topic, you might understand that nobody cares about the stupid reference of "trick" as much as they care about what the "trick" does. Those who understand this know that the "out of context" claim is pure political spin. Respond please!
Seriously, your arrogant attention to this is insulting. Put up or shut up!
I would be kicked out of my doctoral program in a heartbeat if I fudged my empirical data in this way.
The problem is that the agenda sites are in full spin mode so these idiots who never understood what the issue was in the first place are all full of bravado and think they can simply come back in and carry the discussion on fallacious attacks alone. I don't know if they are simply so devious that this is simply a tactic they are using or if they are so stupid they have no understanding of how idiotic they look contesting the information in the manner that they do.
We have dealt with these hacks for years, the smug claims of being "intelligent", "educated", and applying "real science" when they never were meeting the discussion with anything more than political banter. Now they think they can come back and do the same thing when the evidence is as telling as some of this is and keep up the same arrogance?
There is stupid, and then there is so stupid that they have no definition for it.
The over all trend line of global climate change (warming) has not changed direction.
The atmosphere is still in a warming direction even if, for a short time sample, it is cooling. It is as if the furnace was turned up but, because some one had opened a couple of windows, the room was temporarily cooling off.
I suggest the world accept warming as the probable future, consider the likely effects, and plan for ways to keep civilization functioning through this warming period.
Care to provide some research that supports this claim? More specifically, research that links mankind to such? Can you PLEASE provide anything other than bobble head statements that you cut and past from talking point sites?
Please, shows us some research that supports your claim?
Oh, and keep in mind that the US stations used for much of the claims have already been mostly audited showing warming bias. And as for the CRU (who was in charge of the global readings), well... I would love to see the research you use for that one considering we have the documented code, emails, and correspondence of such that puts the CRU's stance on the issue in SEVERE question. Not because of some stupid emails of partisan bantering, rather because their work itself is the true goldmine in this release of information, something you wouldn't understand because you never entertain the data in the first place!
The problem is that the agenda sites are in full spin mode so these idiots who never understood what the issue was in the first place are all full of bravado and think they can simply come back in and carry the discussion on fallacious attacks alone. I don't know if they are simply so devious that this is simply a tactic they are using or if they are so stupid they have no understanding of how idiotic they look contesting the information in the manner that they do.
We have dealt with these hacks for years, the smug claims of being "intelligent", "educated", and applying "real science" when they never were meeting the discussion with anything more than political banter. Now they think they can come back and do the same thing when the evidence is as telling as some of this is and keep up the same arrogance?
There is stupid, and then there is so stupid that they have no definition for it.
I'm just thankful that my field of study (artificial intelligence) is far less politically motivated. Proponents in this field for some reason feel the need to squash dissent or "cleanse" contradictory data in order to push an agenda.
Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:
This does not bode well for that hoax cabal.
Quote:
I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.
I think I'll send off a couple emails to the Universities that employ Mann and a few others involved in this matter.
Where are our resident believers?
Probably under the covers, trying to understand how they could have been so duped.
I'm just thankful that my field of study (artificial intelligence) is far less politically motivated. Proponents in this field for some reason feel the need to squash dissent or "cleanse" contradictory data in order to push an agenda.
It is unfortunate and they sure are downplaying the science right now as they spin up the politics. What needs to happen is we need to hold them (everyone, even the idiots who parrot for them) to every word, every statement, every claim and force them to support their position. They put so much faith in titles, media manipulation and social bullying to carry this through and now their credibility is in the tank. No more (not that we accepted it before as support) can they make generalized claims of validity without providing support to their position.
If they can not properly reason and support their position, they should be cast out as nothing more than spin artists pushing a bias.
Ive only noticed one poster on this board who toed the line of AGW that has treated this information with a reserve, and a humble position asking questions, suggesting possibilities, being skeptical of the information, yet realistic in their understanding of it and the severity to which it may hold. The rest have been the same blatant idiots using the same old tactics they have used before. Arrogance truly is the key to a very stupid person and some of these people are arrogant to the extreme.
The over all trend line of global climate change (warming) has not changed direction.
The atmosphere is still in a warming direction even if, for a short time sample, it is cooling. It is as if the furnace was turned up but, because some one had opened a couple of windows, the room was temporarily cooling off.
I suggest the world accept warming as the probable future, consider the likely effects, and plan for ways to keep civilization functioning through this warming period.
No one disagress that there is warming.
However, the existance of warming does not mean that humans have caused this warming by the release of Green house gases.
Saying it is warm doesnt really mean anything.... I do however, agree with you that we need to transisiton to understanding that climate is varible and start planning for dealing with a a warmer planet..... but I would also add that planning for a cooler planet is also necessary because we will eventually see that too.
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.
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.
