Obama Nation: Cap and Whoops! ("Climategate")

[nabbed]

Nature editorial:

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/462545a.html

About Nature:

Nature's impact factor, a measure of how many citations a journal generates in other works, was 29.273 in 2005 (as measured by Thomson ISI), among the highest of any science journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_...hing_in_Nature

The table shows the top 10 journals by ISI Impact Factor, PageRank, and a modified system that combines the two (based on 2003 data). Nature and Science are generally regarded as the most prestigious journals, and in the combined system they come out on top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_...Rank_algorithm

[SilentMoon]

They're obviously in on it.

I mean, calling yourself Nature? Partisan bias much?

[Zalis]

Al Gore ithm?

[jmervyn]

BWAHAHAHAHA! Did you really just suggest they store raw data on PAPER?

Odd, how do you think it used to be stored? Stone tablets? Who's the ignoramus here, when in fact it WAS stored on paper? We're talking about data points supposedly covering quite an extensive time period, and <guess what>? <Paper> was used for data storage back then; history didn't start with the 1980's as so many of you children seem to believe. The computer revolution was exactly that, and I've seen the room-sized computers that you've only read about in history books. Hell, I was lucky not to have to use punch cards for my undergrad work. This is where having a few years more life experience helps people not fall for crap like AGW as you have; you probably would have been calling me names for suspicions about Piltdown Man too.

This is not a evil conspiracy trying to cover up for "sleight of hand" trickery by burning the source material, this is standard practice.

So you believe it's standard practice to destroy your critical backups? Good thing <I'm> the IT worker here. In reality, the raw data hasn't necessarily been destroyed - it will be expensive to go back and retrieve the station data... unless that, too, is "accidentally" destroyed. However, the raw data does not support the cretins' conclusion (the unsupportable conclusions being highlighted by the context of the e-mails, and even by the pretzel-twisting of the modeling code), which is why they have blocked any attempts at verification. You know, part of what's called "the scientific method", rather than religious dogma and theocracy?

Nabbed hit it spot on, "ignoramus" fits you quite well in this case.

I find it extremely amusing how many ad hominem attacks you folk are throwing at me, with so little actual argument - you are eager victims of groupthink.

[B Ephekt]

Perhaps it is a personal attack, but it's still amazingly dishonest to assert that this one data set, out of many that the IPCC employs, refutes the entirety of climate data. Even if a couple of these scientists did intentionally falsify their data, the whole of climate data does not hinge on that specific dataset, nor would their manipulation discredit the others without further evidence, as the deniers like to claim. This whole affair is little more than a rhetorical device for people who already dismissed AGW for non-scientific reasons. Which just makes the claims of pseudoscience all the more laughable.

But then it's really no surprise that people who think Steven Milloy a scientific authority don't actually care about facts, so much as they do reconciling their worldview.

One of the best I've researched is the fabrication of results on contamination by Depleted Uranium.

I'd love to see you attempt to lie away the fact that DU, once powered, airborne and introduced into the respiratory system, has been causally linked with tons of health issues.


Frankly, you don't care about science, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone even remotely literate.

[nabbed]

This is turning into a Dawkins vs Wright interview.
Here's a quick summation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Pn8nYXFIyQ

jmervyn, you are the dumb redhead in that video (blond in real life).

[jmervyn]

Perhaps it is a personal attack, but it's still amazingly dishonest to assert that this one data set, out of many that the IPCC employs, refutes the entirety of climate data.

I've already stated that this involves 3 of the 4 base sets*. But don't let any truth get in the way of your vitriol and ad hominems

Even if a couple of these scientists did intentionally falsify their data, the whole of climate data does not hinge on that specific dataset, nor would their manipulation discredit the others without further evidence, as the deniers like to claim.

The further evidence has already been brought up (either here or in the Diii thread); but again, since you're of the orthodox you're infallible while I'm just an EBIL KKKONSERVATIVE who should be insulted and hated at every opportunity.

But then it's really no surprise that people who think Steven Milloy a scientific authority don't actually care about facts, so much as they do reconciling their worldview.

Milloy publishes books. But at least he (and others) aren't criminals trying to hide their acts. Which is what these so-called scientists have admitted in their own words to having done.

I'd love to see you attempt to lie away the fact that DU, once powered, airborne and introduced into the respiratory system, has been causally linked with tons of health issues.

No doubt you would, but if you want to see me humiliated simply because I'm not a fanatic leftist like you, you'd have to go elsewhere. I cited the original DU spall studies; my opponent cited role playing games.

Frankly, you don't care about science, and it's blatantly obvious to anyone even remotely literate.

Ah, so because your clergy have been caught buggering the data with their pants around their ankles, <I> don't care about science (and am apparently illiterate in the bargain). Nice to see the fascist left is as open-minded as always.

jmervyn, you are the dumb redhead in that video (blond in real life).

I'm not going to bother to watch that, since the personal attacks are getting a bit tedious. But I'm a little surprised you didn't say Dawkins versus Stein? You know, the one where Dawkins shows himself to be such an Atheist heel? Because making that reference would be a little more apropos... but then, I guess it would cast y'all as the God-hating, Cylon-proposing Dawkins, willing to endorse fantasy rather than grant critics any legitimate claim.

* Jones is actually responsible for two of the four.

[nabbed]

I'm not going to bother to watch that, since the personal attacks are getting a bit tedious. But I'm a little surprised you didn't say Dawkins versus Stein? You know, the one where Dawkins shows himself to be such an Atheist heel? Because making that reference would be a little more apropos... but then, I guess it would cast y'all as the God-hating, Cylon-proposing Dawkins, willing to endorse fantasy rather than grant critics any legitimate claim.

What is the age of Earth and the universe?

[jmervyn]

What is the age of Earth and the universe?

If you're... (well, I was going to say, "praying", but that's probably silly) hoping that I'm a 'Young Earther' then I'm happy to disappoint. I just don't get my rocks off by hating and feeling superior to people who have religious faith as being stupid/insane/ing'nant. B.E. has already admitted to be of that variety, but I forget (and don't really care) if you're another one.

Besides, that wasn't the question Dawkins was shown to be a bigot regarding. It was discussing the Singularity and commonality of DNA, as I recall, when he postulated that it must have been space aliens or something (Xenu?), just as long as it wasn't God. I'm sure you can find the YouTube yourself, you're a smart boy.

[nabbed]

If you're... (well, I was going to say, "praying", but that's probably silly) hoping that I'm a 'Young Earther' then I'm happy to disappoint. I just don't get my rocks off by hating and feeling superior to people who have religious faith as being stupid/insane/ing'nant. B.E. has already admitted to be of that variety, but I forget (and don't really care) if you're another one.

Besides, that wasn't the question Dawkins was shown to be a bigot regarding. It was discussing the Singularity and commonality of DNA, as I recall, when he postulated that it must have been space aliens or something (Xenu?), just as long as it wasn't God. I'm sure you can find the YouTube yourself, you're a smart boy.

Hey easy, fella! I'm just trying to discredit you.

Since all you do is repeat the same mantra, over and over, even when presented with evidence and reason, arguing with you is a waste of time. People like you cannot be convinced once they've made up their mind.
They are still annoying and infectious, and the only way to deal with them seems to be to show that they are idiots.

So, do you believe in creationism, intelligent design, or evolution? And how does your view agree with the 13.7 billion year old universe?