PC Gaming News
Page 5 of 28 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 277
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    If I had a cause, it would indeed be helpful.
    Then perhaps it is the very way you are wording things, suggesting a goal you don not really have.

    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.
    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.

    Obviously, they were going to try to conjure up scientific grounds for this.
    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.

    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.
    Less fraud, and more psuedo science.

    I'm always happy to do so, but this happens to be the thread about Climategate.
    Climategate being the latest example of how people pretend they've disproven science based on one minor occurance.

    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.
    Nah, I do my best to ignore the Daily Mail .

    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?
    Indeed, that does seem rather odd. Especially when that site explains the misinterpretations some of this Climategate are based on.

    If that <had> been the claim, it would be more palatable.
    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".

    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.
    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).
    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.

    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.

    I'm providing links as evidence, you're just providing snooty condescension.
    And again.
    Last edited by SibbTigre; 30-11-2009 at 13:29.

  2. #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.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    That graph has no axis legends, no error bars, no explaination of what is actually being plotted. It is worth exactly nothing and it is in fact quite amusing to see it brandished as some sort of demonstration of scientific misbehavior.

    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.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Then perhaps it is the very way you are wording things, suggesting a goal you don not really have.
    Any suggestion is your interpretation. I simply do not believe in AGW, and have solid suspicions that it is a giant scam being engineered by the U.N.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    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.
    Your answer is quite revealing - it is no different from mine, except in the most obvious question. It was set up to assess and control something it presupposes to exist, and the method for control is something long discussed as a preferred objective of the U.N.: the ability to tax or levy fines for something insubstantial.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Less fraud, and more psuedo science.
    Which, inflating the claim of supportive scientists from 60 to 4000? Or that mankind is directly responsible for GW?
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Climategate being the latest example of how people pretend they've disproven science based on one minor occurance.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Indeed, that does seem rather odd. Especially when that site explains the misinterpretations some of this Climategate are based on.
    Statements of damage control which are repeatedly reneged upon as even more contrary proof comes out is hardly 'explanation' or 'misinterpretation'.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    the Daily Mail actually said:

    -"The ice is not retreating"
    -"There is no evidence of global warming"

    Both of which are wrong.
    But neither of which are 'right'. That's the problem with the whole field; it's the study of a massively complex system which defies prediction for reasons even experts can't explain. And that goes to the heart of the matter - these frauds can't back up their conclusions with any honesty, and the contrary evidence can no longer be denied. The solid fact that they form the basis of the power grab by the U.N. and left-bent companies desiring to implement the Enron plan for remittances cannot help but taint any of those who promote AGW, and certainly not to a lesser degree than those same cretins throw mud at people who disagree being paid by companies that will be massively damaged should this scheme be made law.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    I didn't insult you.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Your knowledge in this field appears so poor, I actually feel you would do well as a columist for the Daily Mail. Seriously. Your posts are sensasionalist in nature and contain little real fact on the matter in hand.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Now please go and read the various, and numerous, papers on the subject, then post. Or stop posting and get a job at the Daily Mail.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentMoon View Post
    That graph has no axis legends, no error bars, no explaination of what is actually being plotted. It is worth exactly nothing and it is in fact quite amusing to see it brandished as some sort of demonstration of scientific misbehavior.
    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.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Your answer is quite revealing - it is no different from mine, except in the most obvious question. It was set up to assess and control something it presupposes to exist, and the method for control is something long discussed as a preferred objective of the U.N.: the ability to tax or levy fines for something insubstantial.
    That is why it assesses the human affect. Not to mention that:
    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.
    Is only half-true. The same evidence that points to your evident conclusion also points out that actually, we DO NOT KNOW the truth behind the interaction of CO2 and atmpsheric temperature.

    Which, inflating the claim of supportive scientists from 60 to 4000?
    Supporting is not the same as contributing. 4000 may support the claims, but only 60 responsible for the claim itself.

    Or that mankind is directly responsible for GW?
    Do not put words in people's mouths.

    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.
    Whatever. Clearly you're on the outside looking in, and only seeing part of the picture.

    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'.
    That's what I said, isn't it?

    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.
    Acting implies some intention. Thus the difference. Which is made even worse by "trying to".

    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.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    That is why it assesses the human affect.
    Immaterial. It is assessing something which from the onset it planned to use to gather political power. Anyone surprised by the corruption and fraud probably doesn't know what the U.N. does.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Is only half-true. The same evidence that points to your evident conclusion also points out that actually, we DO NOT KNOW the truth behind the interaction of CO2 and atmpsheric temperature.
    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. What there <isn't> any valid proof of is the CRU's claim that the dis-proven 'hockey stick' is evidence of a runaway reaction.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Supporting is not the same as contributing. 4000 may support the claims, but only 60 responsible for the claim itself.
    Re-read the link. From the analysis, the 4000 include multiple listings and citations of people who agree to GW in some form or at some time.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Do not put words in people's mouths.
    Uh, if you're unclear on the subject, that's what AGW <means>.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Whatever. Clearly you're on the outside looking in, and only seeing part of the picture.
    Not surprising, considering the barriers the CRU erected to any kind of open revelation.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Simply not having the "original" data is not enough to disprove something.
    If science provides anything worthy, it is the ability to support theories and models through either experimentation or calculation. I think that's called the 'scientific method' for us dumb fecks who aren't as elite and informed as you true believers.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    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.
    There aren't many people arguing that part, considering that the CRU's claims are quite handily put in geological time with end results being so far in the future so as to be beyond observation.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    That's what I said, isn't it?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Acting implies some intention. Thus the difference.
    Dishonest equivocation seems to be your forté.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    It is indeed conjuration, as there is substantial evidence that CO2 increases <follow> warming rather than causing it.
    Of course it does! Permafrost is a huge repository of CO2 and methane; if completely emptied, the gases trapped in the Earth's permafrost right now would double the atmospheric concentration of CO2. As temperatures in the tundra rise, the permafrost melts (which anyone who lives in Alaska or Canada can tell you is happening, as houses sink into once-frozen ground), releasing the gases trapped inside. It's a positive feedback loop; CO2 increases global temperatures - which is simple physics, and if you for some reason doubt this I urge you to consult the links nabbed posted - and in turn higher temperatures increases CO2 concentrations. How anyone could take that correlation and twist it to "CO2 doesn't increase temperatures, it's the other way around" is beyond me. You truly don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the science behind global warming theories; you probably just read someone talking about the reverse correlation and assumed there was only one way the relationship could go.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Immaterial. It is assessing something which from the onset it planned to use to gather political power. Anyone surprised by the corruption and fraud probably doesn't know what the U.N. does.
    Assessing something can also mean rejecting it.

    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.
    That's a simple way to put it, considering how complicated the system truly is.

    Not surprising, considering the barriers the CRU erected to any kind of open revelation.
    One of the largest internal criticisms of the science community is how many people and groups have a tendancy to withhold the data. This is not unique to CRU, IPCC or whoever you may feel it is.

    I've had sufficient scientific experience, despite yet another of your slams-that-really-isn't-an-insult-really.
    Then that sentence should have served as a reminder. You can read an insult into if you really want.

    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.
    So, psuedo science, as I said. It's not rare, and if it amounts to conspiracy, then it does so. But that changes pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things, or indeed the politics surrounding GW/Climate change.

    ...I think that's called the 'scientific method' for us dumb fecks who aren't as elite and informed as you true believers.
    Are you enjoying putting words in my mouth?

    No. Saying 'Both of which are wrong.' implies that they have no validity.
    But they don't. Trends showed that on the roaming average global annual temperature, there has been an increase. Further, the ice cover in the N. hemisphere has retreated, and even in the S. hemisphere, while the overall mass of ice is about the same, there is less covering the oceans.
    I didn't claim a connection between the two. Afterall, many predictions have the United Kingdom getting colder, not warmer, as a result of Climate Change and GW.

    Plus, your immediate link backed up that the ice sheets are retreating, for whatever reason.

    Dishonest equivocation seems to be your forté.
    Twisting the meaning of words, sentences and paragraphs appears to be yours.
    Last edited by SibbTigre; 30-11-2009 at 15:52.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    I have no doubt that you did, and that is what my second statement refers to. Sad and unsurprising.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    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'?
    No. What I read following your own links is that the raw data is not there anymore, but the calibrated data remains, which is not optimal but a perfectly acceptable and common scientific occurrence as long as there is consensus on the calibration method. Since you have no knowledge or arguments on the calibration method beyond politically fueled wishes, I disregard it.

    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.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Assessing something can also mean rejecting it.
    What part of "Anyone surprised by the corruption and fraud probably doesn't know what the U.N. does." escaped you here?
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    That's a simple way to put it, considering how complicated the system truly is.
    I may try to be a simple man, but I'm not a simpleton. It's better to put such things simply, rather than use pretentiousness about a conclusion which isn't supportable.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    One of the largest internal criticisms of the science community is how many people and groups have a tendancy to withhold the data. This is not unique to CRU, IPCC or whoever you may feel it is.
    Odd, I seem to recall being mocked by forum members for my scathing view of scientists producing 'junk' variety claims in order to sensationalize their conclusions. Gee, 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    But that changes pretty much nothing in the grand scheme of things, or indeed the politics surrounding GW/Climate change.
    This is untrue. When the second major foundation of the IPCC's AGW claims is for all intents and purposes debunked (the first being the initial "hockey stick", then all of their political conclusions are called into question. When the IPCC's entire economy-destroying plan will result in a change that is less than a rounding error even <before> Climategate destroyed the credibility of the CRU, one cannot in good conscience wish so much suffering and even death on people just for the sake of some well-funded frauds' opinions.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    But they do. Trends showed that on the roaming average global annual temperature, there has been an increase. Further, the ice cover in the N. hemisphere has retreated, and even in the S. hemisphere, while the overall mass of ice is about the same, there is less covering the oceans.
    All of these assertions are being debated quite heatedly, since they are attempts to extrapolate snapshots into wire-ranging trends. It also is immaterial to the larger AGW claim, as additional links on that same sheet demonstrate.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    I didn't claim a connection between the two. Afterall, many predictions have the United Kingdom getting colder, not warmer, as a result of Climate Change and GW.
    But that's the point, isn't it? Such predictions would seem to fly in the face of the overall claim, and are made by applying external factors. But those external factors are only being applied in one direction. That's the another of the sort of problem Jones has been skewered for with the extrapolations of the graph I posted earlier.
    Quote Originally Posted by SibbTigre View Post
    Twisting the meaning of words, sentences and paragraphs appears to be yours.
    You say I'm twisting, I'd say you're wriggling...
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentMoon View Post
    I have no doubt that you did, and that is what my second statement refers to. Sad and unsurprising.
    So you think that because I illustrated my point, and followed it up with the link containing the problem, yet failed to provide exhaustive proof that Jones deliberately removed the uptick for nefarious purposes, I'm therefore uninformed. Lovely.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentMoon View Post
    What I read following your own links is that the raw data is not there anymore, but the calibrated data remains, which is not optimal but a perfectly acceptable and common scientific occurrence as long as there is consensus on the calibration method. Since you have no knowledge or arguments on the calibration method beyond politically fueled wishes, I disregard it.
    This despite the 'calibration' method (the computer models as well as deliberate discard and covering up of the Medieval Warm Period) being shown to be whole cloth by the very FOI information disclosed. The cretins went out of their way to hide their calibration methods! And you support them! Anyone wonder why such views are held in deep scorn by the general populace?
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentMoon View Post
    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.
    Pity that they have been blackballed by Jones, et al. The data was eliminated in favor of temperature readings (also gamed) - but then the question needs to be asked, why some readings and not others?
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentMoon View Post
    But more distressing is how well this is received by the public opinion.
    Thank God for that. Hopefully this will spell the absolute destruction and humiliation of those leftists who would try to hide malevolent power grabs behind "science". At least for a few years.'

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •