http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...global-warming/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/n...global-cooling/

nothing to see here - move along... Al Gore told me the debate is over

PS - Shouldnt this thread be in the Religon section?

This is really funny on a number of levels. I was going to start a thread like this on Saturday and just thought "Why bother?". The zealots don't want to have a discussion based on facts anyways.

So I just hit delete.























Queue FCP Bob, VBNautilus, and Long Live Yorke to come out swinging with their zealous bats now.

Global warming must be true

It's in the high 70s low 80s here and has been for a while.

Plus clear blue skies and tons of sunshine.

I bet it's like that all across the country....our poor poor country

Objectively speaking, those have got to be three of the most rational people on the forum.

MIT The University of East Anglia: Where all of science's dirty deceptive secrets are kept in a vault insecure computer connected to the internet.

Good try at misdirection....you've been outed comrade.

Deal with it!

it is good to be right!!

Hazaaa:

What really shocked me was learning that the data these scientists apparently manipulated is also inextricably linked to every single other piece of data or research ever done by other people at other labs in other countries. Surely, I thought, this would just be a case where a few scientists were found to have manipulated data for their own purposes. Never did I imagine that this hack-job would also offer solid evidence that global warming is a complete myth, and that all of the evidence used in support of its existence has been falsified.

Wait, that didn't happen? It was just a few dudes at East Chavers University?

With billions of dollars in the research stream, not to mention a couple of bogus nobel prizes, if the slies parted and God himself said it was bogus, GORE and his band of merry followers wouldnt be taken off message.

To be fair tho, if all the polar bears dropped dead, the ice caps melted, and las vegas became a beachfront town, we wouldnt be swayed either.

SO I guess well just have to agree to disagree. Hopefully tho the world economy isnt destroyed making unnecessary changes. Or the world itself isnt destroyed cause we didnt.

Are you seriously denying the importance of this story? That one of the key pieces of data, the famous hockey stick graph, was probably fudged and based on data selected to confirm pre-existing biases (discarding contradictory data)? And the emails were not just among the people at this institution, they went to other "respectable" researchers, too.

Does this proof AGW is false? No, of course not, but when combined with the fact that, in direct contradiction to modeled predictions, there has been no warming for 10 years , this proof that some of the most "respected" leaders in the field are flagrantly falsifying data is pretty serious. So yeah, I think the combined stories coming out of respected institutions over the last six months has to be making any serious scientist re-think their ideas. Anyone who says otherwise is not engaged in science, they are practicing religion.

I'm seriously denying that this story closes the book on global warming. I did however find it very interesting and it did perhaps change my views somewhat.

Uh henry, I have it on good authority ( vb and crow in the religion section ) that science does not allow politics or personal agendas change their view on thier findings, they in fact are only seeking the truth, no matter where it lies.



get it..lies...

So your views are coming more in line with Rush Limbaugh's?

I guess there is hope for us all.

Isn't this a perfect example of that though? If we find out someone was lying or that their data were bad we can revise our view based on that info. In religion, if the guy who wrote the ancient text was lying, too bad!

especially since the guy gets to determine what happens to your immortal soul...

I hope not.

This won't slow the political class in championing AGW and it's spin-off projects...

I will believe this when I see it.

Even if global warming was completely debunked, there would in short order be another grave matter in which massive wealth and power would need to be confiscated in the name of saving the planet. (see The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich)

You do realize that "science" and the common beliefs held by intelligent scientists change constantly, as new experiments, discoveries, theories, etc are seen and discussed and debated? That's like, the very basis of what science is. You keep on retesting shit (theories) and coming up with new ideas of what and how to test that shit, and if ever you get consistently repeatable results that go against your supposedly-proven theory, then that theory must be changed. Unless you're a bad scientist, in which case you cover up the data that doesn't help your theory, such as these guys did.

I'm going to try and find this really great quote about a related point. I'll edit this, or post below if there's crazy discussion while I'm gone (unlikely).

Yeah, TW answered this pretty directly. If you've never seen a scientific theory change you just haven't been paying attention. They don't all need to change -- some of them are right!

Well, my point is that those involved in global warming/climate change aren't concerned with the science in the first place. I think they mostly fall into the catagory of the "bad Scientists" mentioned in TW post.

This little fella does look a little rabid....

I don't see how you or I could possibly be in a position to make that judgment.

Here's the quote I was thinking of. It's by Richard Dawkins, in The Blind Watchmaker. He's talking about evolution, and I want to point out that it's not a direct parallel because global warming is nothing like Darwinian theory as far as how extensively proven and rationally understood it is, but I think the message is relevant to any scientific theory, well-proven or not.


"Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."

My new after the Holidays sig.


Thank you sir.

It's kind of out of context if you don't include this part though:

Stupid polar bears

Link

Are polar bears allowed on Airplanes now?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
Obama's Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding "Climategate" scandal

The more I read the better it gets:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/ta...l?tag=mncol;txt

Huh?! so in the global warming debate which side are you accusing of distorting facts and blowing things out of proportion????

.

Because we would rather listen to Rush.

Do you think the AP will assign 11 reporters to fact check global warming?

how lucky you are that dbagka showed up to make you seem reasonable

Reasonable meaning I would like reporters to investigate something important rather than picking apart a book by sarah palin...


seems very reasonable doesnt it

I would love to listen to LLY explain this one. It appears to be a math problem. Not the usual kind though, kind of a man-made math problem. Hell I will even send him food.

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/gl...warming_nz2.pdf

It would help if your source wasn't the Canada Free Press. I mean really. Judi McLeod is their Editor (in chief). This is the very opening of her own Thanksgiving article from yesterday.


"As Americans sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, President Barack Obama and his band of malcontent hippy czars are out there fomenting for revolution. Progressives they are not, given that some of those same czars were fomenting for revolution back in the 60s when a kid named Barry was still in red diapers, having come into this world in 1961, in Country Unknown."

Really.

Oooooooooooooh yeah, that is some sweet sweet journalism.

Tim - is Holdren involved? because if he is... it is news - no matter who writes it

one of the world's many absurdities

paying that much attention to a completely irrelevant woman

As I sit here enjoying myself reading all of the climategate e-mails, I just recalled an earlier thought that these book cooking scientists really need to be put in jail for crimes against humanity. I wonder if a prisoner's dilemna approach was taken with a bunch of these whitecoats, just how quickly they would start ratting each other out, if the end punishment for those not capitulating was going to be extremely harsh. Dare to dream...........

You missed my point. The parallel was with the eagerness of people to jump on the "you're wrong!" boat, as opposed to taking the "hey let's deal with this scientifically rationally" boat.

The other point was that The Media (aka the megaphone) has a job to do, and that is to make headlines. Any mainstream media probably isn't a terribly good source on science. The same way I wouldn't go to CNN to read about the nuances of Terry Francona's defensive alignment against left-handed power-hitters, I'd be more likely to find accurate, rational ideas about global warming in a science magazine, or at least somewhere better than MSNBC or whatever.

So which network or paper besides FOX has covered this story with their megaphone?

I don't know what you mean. I gave an example of some arrogant and childish writing from their main editor, in her most recent article. How is what you just said related to that at all?





Canada free press, apparently. I mean, I have no idea. I don't follow every worldwide news agency and what they report and how well they report it. Neither do you. I again don't understand why you're asking. If you're trying to imply that only fox news is covering it, I mean, there are links to like a half dozen articles in this thread, none of them fox news.

the world would be much better off if this garbage weren't politicized

I see you have edited your post - If NBS,CBS,ABC,NY Times,WAPO,AP,CNN,MSNBC ignore this story -The only news organization with any substantial reach in the US is covering the story is FOX news


LOL - you may not like her writing, but if Holdren is involved - it will be a big story

I actually do follow how well they report it...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/200...enu-sea-lions-p

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...ng-stories-read

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-marka...uch-climategate

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/...ues-ostrich-act

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...climategate-cnn