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.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Tiger Woods has gotten himself into a little trouble the past week or so. But, no matter what Tiger has done in regard to fidelity of marriage, it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not he won the 1997 Masters, or 2000 U.S. Open, or any of the 70-odd PGA events he’s won. Yes, his indiscretions are a blow to his image and may affect his endorsement deals, but golf history is unaffected, and (psychology aside) his status as a golfer is unchanged. How he is perceived by the public is what has changed, because he has tarnished his clean-cut image. His golf swing is unaffected. The people that didn’t like him before have one more reason not to like him, but rooting for or against someone on the tube doesn’t affect the outcome of the match.
And so it is with climategate. Public perception is affected, because of the political aspects of the scientists’ words and actions, but not so much the science. But it matters, because it’s one more excuse to cast aspersions, regardless of the validity of the claims. The ones making the most noise about this aren’t the type who let facts get in their way. The asymmetry of the situation is very striking: the publicly active climate change deniers have been shown to be wrong many times in the past, on a variety of points, and yet none of them seem to have folded their tents. The problem is that with any complex problem, it’s fairly easy to make an incorrect statement that sounds plausible, and yet it takes far longer to set the record straight than it does to misinform. And yet the act of misinforming doesn’t seem to damage the credibility of the denialists, which is probably one of the reasons scientists in general don’t wish to engage them. This isn’t a clash between scientific views, it’s science vs propaganda, and that’s not a level playing field.
Al Gore is just reciting his talking points. Having to actually study the material and becoming knowledgeable about what he is talking about is not of any use to al Gore, he is simply a money grubbing, elitist and propagandist.
They aren't denying the fraud anymore, they are applying typical political tactics to defend it by claiming that it doesn't change anything.
Heck, I remember Steve bringing up a lot of these holes concerning Mann, Briffa, Santer, Jones, etc... to even the IPCC and each time he pointed out the issue, they responded with "It doesn't change anything, the position is still sound" and then turned around and used the flawed data anyway. /boggle
For people who made a campaign of claims of "denial" for those questioning the science, they sure do seem to apply a perfect definition of it themselves when questioned on the issue.
Thank GOD!!!! We can go on polluting as normal now... WHEW!!! That was CLOSE!!
That's a strawman. No one suggested that we should've prevent the rivers and air from being polluted. Rather, the focus is on CO2, which is the lifeblood of plants.
Al Gore has become the ultimate Climategate denier - he has too much money wrapped up in his deceits to just walk away.
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.
