If I remember correctly IPCC is International Panel on Climate Change, and supposedly set up to assess and control the human impact on climate change. I could be totally wrong, of course.The IPCC is and always was a political work-group, created to try to bring about the Ken Lay/Al Gore concept of energy remittances on a global scale.
There is some evidence of a human impact, such as the increased atmospheric CO2 as measured at Hawawii and indeed ice cores from the Antarctic. "To conjure up" is grossly inaccurate.Obviously, they were going to try to conjure up scientific grounds for this.
Less fraud, and more psuedo science.So from the start the AGW argument has been of the vulnerable sort, where you try to figure out support for your predetermined conclusion. When there are actually only 60 scientists rather than the imaginary 4000 actually trying to make this case, the magnitude of this fraud becomes quite relevant.
Climategate being the latest example of how people pretend they've disproven science based on one minor occurance.I'm always happy to do so, but this happens to be the thread about Climategate.
Nah, I do my best to ignore the Daily Mail .If you want to create a thread about the misuse of "science" for political purposes, I'll do my best to contribute bipartisan examples. One of the best I've researched is the fabrication of results on contamination by Depleted Uranium.
Indeed, that does seem rather odd. Especially when that site explains the misinterpretations some of this Climategate are based on.Maybe <you> aren't, but the other posts certainly are. Telling me that I'm ignorant, and that I should go eddicate myself through sole use of the very site these cretins control?
It may not be your claim, but it's certainly one of the many claims that's been floating around since this "came to light".If that <had> been the claim, it would be more palatable.
As an edit -
A great example of this was last week's question time, where the women from the Daily Mail actually said:
-"The ice is not retreating"
-"There is no evidence of global warming"
Both of which are wrong.
I didn't insult you. I said "appear", I did not call you ignorant, and it is not my fault you read sensationalist as a bad thing. Judging by the Daily Mail and some other tabloids, Sensationalist articles are highly profitable.Furthermore, I wouldn't be tweaking you on misspellings if you weren't trying to act like such an arrogant arse (with multiple ad hominem attacks having nothing to do with the issue).
However, you have said I'm trying to act like an arrogant arse, which I'm afraid is an attack on my person and so is being reported as such.
And again.I'm providing links as evidence, you're just providing snooty condescension.
PC Gaming News
Results 41 to 50 of 277
30-11-2009, 13:26 #41
Last edited by SibbTigre; 30-11-2009 at 13:29.
30-11-2009, 13:39 #42
Personally I'm pro-global-warming, there's too much rain and too little sunshine in this place. I mean, imagine having summer for 9 months per year. Damn it would be nice to hang out on the beach that much.
30-11-2009, 13:49 #43
The very email record that site links to a few lines above the posted graph actually explains what it is they are supposedly doing with the data. That so many people can read through that and see "trick!" is sad but not really surprising.
30-11-2009, 14:26 #44
Odd, I found it quite revelatory. So I guess that you're claiming because there aren't original copies of the missing data which they were demanding under FOI represented in the graph, they're lying? Good to know. Then what would you call wholesale elimination of what the CRU calls 'proof'?
Last edited by jmervyn; 30-11-2009 at 14:32.
30-11-2009, 14:45 #45
It is indeed conjuration, as there is substantial evidence that CO2 increases <follow> warming rather than causing it. And again, you endorse junk science at its worst, assuming that correlation <IS> causation.
Which, inflating the claim of supportive scientists from 60 to 4000?
Or that mankind is directly responsible for GW?
This is a legitimate problem, but it doesn't fit the situation. The situation is that the CRU deliberately fudged their numbers, deliberately destroyed the bulk of the supporting data, and deliberately tried to destroy and discredit those who questioned them. That may be what you call science; it's what I call conspiracy.
If you had any scientific background, you'd understand the need for "correcting" data where systemic errors have occured, and there are many other situations again where correction may need to take place.
Simply not having the "original" data is not enough to disprove something.
Destroying and discrediting is another matter entirely, but when most of the argument against GW and climate change is "we can't see it, therefore it ain't true", it's pretty hard to "discredit" such arguments.
But neither of which are 'right'.
Hypocrisy much? If you think that such equivocation is somehow a one sided deal (much like the cretins of Climategate), then you'll note I said "acting" like an arrogant arse.
You did read were I said you may need to double check your wording, right?
Last edited by SibbTigre; 30-11-2009 at 14:50.
30-11-2009, 15:07 #46
30-11-2009, 15:10 #47
30-11-2009, 15:20 #48
That's the most accurate thing you've said so far. My personal suspicion is that there is legitimacy to both claims, in that greenhouse gasses 'cause' a greenhouse, but that solar warming 'causes' CO2 increase.
Not surprising, considering the barriers the CRU erected to any kind of open revelation.
I've had sufficient scientific experience, despite yet another of your slams-that-really-isn't-an-insult-really.
The evidence shows that this is not only correction, but fabrication. Multiple incidents of it. Which is why the cabal couldn't comply with the FOI requests.
...I think that's called the 'scientific method' for us dumb fecks who aren't as elite and informed as you true believers.
No. Saying 'Both of which are wrong.' implies that they have no validity.
Furthermore, the reality is indeterminable, in no small part due to the fact that external factors (other than AGW) are in play.
Plus, your immediate link backed up that the ice sheets are retreating, for whatever reason.
Dishonest equivocation seems to be your forté.
Last edited by SibbTigre; 30-11-2009 at 15:52.
30-11-2009, 15:42 #49
In case you'd missed it, the "wrong data" in the plot above is also a matter of calibration and filtering out what they call a non-temperature signal. I cannot comment on what that signal is (and I suspect there must be more than one paper out there with an explanation), but frankly neither can you. Between the two I am indeed inclined to believe the scientists who have actually done the analysis.
The throwing around of pseudo-scientific arguments going on here and everywhere else right now by any number of people with obviously no real knowledge of what they are talking about is simply pathetic, to be honest. But more distressing is how well this is received by the public opinion.
30-11-2009, 16:05 #50
that sounds awfully familiar... Now, this may seem to contradict my previous views on simplicity, but it doesn't - I believe that scientists should STFU and work, rather than trying to sensationalize their studies in order to grab even more tax dollars. They largely scorn scientists engaged in commercial research, but IMO that's just a microcosm of the problem with society.
I'm always amused that while conservatives turn on each other with knives when one of their members is found to be dishonest, progressive leftists stand around sheepishly with their puds in their hands insisting that it hasn't happened and really doesn't matter anyway.
Last edited by jmervyn; 30-11-2009 at 16:15.