GameBanshee Forums

Now now, that particular climate research unit is one of the bigger ones. Many of the other units are getting their results on the basis of what this one is doing. Besides, these are the only ones who were caught. Like every other reasonable person i am waiting for the investigation to be completed. The only new info that has come out in weeks has been from bloggers on both sides of the politics.

In the meantime I see no reason NOT to open things up. Personal attacks against those you disagree with are par for the coarse. Vowing to delete data(that was subsequently lost) rather than release it under a freedom of information request is petty, illegal unethical and stupid. As i mentioned before, if the data was lost by accident, that is incompetence. If it was deliberate it was a crime.

I am waiting to see which it was. In both cases heads should roll.

jklinders wrote:Now now, that particular climate research unit is one of the bigger ones.

The data they had was still accurate, and the data and behavior that has been gathered for dozens of years now from around the world shows that climate change is a fact. Are you suggesting that the trash talking of a few people somehow invalidates tons of data that have nothing to do with them?

Many of the other units are getting their results on the basis of what this one is doing. Besides, these are the only ones who were caught.

There were a small handful of Italian descendants in New Jersey who were caught engaging in electoral fraud last year. No other Italian descendants were even linked to the scandal, but then these were the only ones who were caught. Which means we should distrust all Italian descendants, I guess. Right? Oh, and the Dutch: all bigots. After all, a few are, and the rest simply haven't been found out yet. Goes without saying.

Like every other reasonable person i am waiting for the investigation to be completed.

I don't really think you get to speak for "every other reasonable person," much less since several of those that have responded here (and all those I've known off-forum) have laughed at this so-called Climategate, and point to it as a sideshow designed to draw attention away from the facts. Of course, I don't get to speak for anyone else, either, but then, I never claimed to.

The only new info that has come out in weeks has been from bloggers on both sides of the politics.

Facts are facts; the sources are irrelevant. I already posted a link refuting each one of the Climategate claims. There are numerous others. Anyone can say the posters were leftwing bloggers or even three-legged aliens from Alpha Centauri, but it doesn't make what they wrote any less logical or accurate for putting a label on them. Nor does it render two sides equal when one lies, and the other doesn't.

In the meantime I see no reason NOT to open things up. Personal attacks against those you disagree with are par for the coarse. Vowing to delete data(that was subsequently lost) rather than release it under a freedom of information request is petty, illegal unethical and stupid. As i mentioned before, if the data was lost by accident, that is incompetence. If it was deliberate it was a crime.

Does this mean that you're angry as hell and screaming bloody murder at all the climate change deniers who have reportedly falsified data and lied about it for years--as mountains of published evidence show?

And the original lost data Fable? I have nothing anywhere that has addressed that, including the link you gave me. To be clear, that data is the underpinning of the entire climate change model. New link with a snippet preview.

The ?science? of global warming - Mark Steyn - Macleans.ca

Yet perhaps the most important revelation is not the collusion, the bullying, the politicization and the evidence-planting, but the fact that, even if you wanted to do honest “climate research” at the Climatic Research Unit, the data and the models are now so diseased by the above that they’re all but useless. Let Ian “Harry” Harris, who works in “climate scenario development and data manipulation” at the CRU, sum it up. Mr. Harris was attempting to duplicate previous results—i.e., to duplicate all that science that’s supposedly settled, and the questioning of which consigns you to the Climate Branch of the Flat Earth Society. How hard should it be to confirm settled science? After much cyber-gnashing of teeth, Harry throws in the towel:

“ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently—I have no memory of this at all—we’re not doing observed rain days! It’s all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I’m going to need conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF happens to station counts?

“OH F–K THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

Thus spake the Settled Scientist: “OH F–K THIS.” And on the basis of “OH F–K THIS” the world’s enlightened progressives will assemble at Copenhagen for the single greatest advance in punitive liberalism ever perpetrated on the developed world.
\
The source is a little suspect, but you have already said you are OK with that. Your turn...

jklinders wrote:And the original lost data Fable? I have nothing anywhere that has addressed that, including the link you gave me. To be clear, that data is the underpinning of the entire climate change model. New link with a snippet preview.

The "entire climate change model" you refer to has been around for quite some time, with some alterations allowing for new data. It isn't missing or lost, which is why nobody is referring to it in the link I provided. (Even the right-leaning Associated Press, which placed 5 reporters and 7 scientists on this story to read each of those 1073 hacked "Climategate" emails, has concluded that the science of global warming was not faked.) It's been developed around the world. No one's withholding that. And Steyn...? He's not a climate scientist. He's a very far-right political commentator who has been endlessly called on his factual errors (and some very repulsive opinions about torture) in the past. Could you come up with some reputable climate scientists who say the same thing, please? I'll gladly engage in a discussion over the validity of the facts in such remarks.

The source is a little suspect, but you have already said you are OK with that. Your turn...

Since you can't or won't respond to the holes I've picked in your arguments, you really don't get to lie in response about my comments with impunity. At least, not in any way that doesn't draw down laughter on your head, since anyone can read directly above your last post that I never said I was okay with suspect sources of any kind.

That said, you never answered any of my concerns regarding the points you've raised, you link to a person who is a rabid climate change denier that knows next to nothing about the subject, and state you want to be impartial about Climategate without investigating any of the actual climate change content that's out there for decades from thoroughly reputable scientific sources. I'm sure we've reached the end of this discussion.

Sigh, perhaps it is slightly my fault for coming across so rabidly against climate change. Trust me I am not. Let me explain since I have done so poorly in previous posts.

First, of coarse the the "science" from the deniers is frequently bupkis. Following the money shows that, and they have not played clean pool. The media however is more than happy to jump all over that whenever it happens. No particular need for me to emphasize that anymore. What seems to happen whenever the same is done on the proponents' side is a glossing over to the point of ignorance.

When I see someone who is acting like they have something to hide, my first response is to believe they do have something to hide. So yes, the whole thing is a tempest is a teapot, but do you really want these guys to get off scott free? If nothing else bothers you, the deletion of information requested under freedom of information laws should. Motivations aside, it is still a crime. That and admittedly a desire to stir the pot was the reason i opened the topic.

Anyway, there it is, my mistake perhaps was emphasizing too strongly my current distrust of scientists, simply because as a layman, I cannot tell if they are BS'ing me or not. You certainly took me to task there, but no hard feelings*extends hand to shake*

And now the cynics and liars are gathering to push this fake Climategate. Here we have Bill Bennett, late of the Bush administration and an extremely well-paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, comparing it on television to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. This really does put into perspective where the climate change deniers are coming from: feeding fear and ignorance to those who build it into self-confirming "truths" that have nothing to do with reality.

2 + 2 = 5

fable wrote:And now the cynics and liars are gathering to push this fake Climategate. Here we have Bill Bennett, late of the Bush administration and an extremely well-paid shill for the fossil fuel industry, comparing it on television to Hitler's persecution of the Jews. This really does put into perspective where the climate change deniers are coming from: feeding fear and ignorance to those who build it into self-confirming "truths" that have nothing to do with reality.

Ugh, trotting out the nazis. The last resort of the ignorant, stupid and utterly tasteless. But I am confused, Hitler hated socialism, but there is a fear of a socialist agenda behind the climate change debate. honestly can't these crackpots pick one. Either a socialist conspiracy or a nazi conspiracy. Near as I can tell you can't have a socialist nazi conspiracy without being certafiably insane...