(01-23-2012 04:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:05 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Really? I mean what about the falsefied or fraudulent data?

You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

The fact that you responded in the disingenuous manner you did was also predictable.

"Some alarmist?"

Did you not see these links in the article I linked?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pres...entreviews
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.../38708.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to...from-.aspx
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangermen...facts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/...vironment/

Well factcheck.org and msnbc! What else could you want?

Tom, you can actually read the emails yourself. I read some of them, I know what they said.

But I did make a mistake, those aren't the only source of fraudulent data. I've posted other times when Hanson presented incorrect data, which he subsequently changed. There are many other sources of incorrect data.

What the emails show is that the "scientists" invovled in this aren't interested in the accuracy of the data, just whether the conclusions support their bias.

Ohhhhh....so attacking the source is now allowed when it suits you? You're so damned predictable it's pathetic.

Sorry good Doctor, but I'll take the analysis of professional agencies (and even factcheck and MSNBC) over some message board wanna be expert.

(01-23-2012 04:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Ohhhhh....so attacking the source is now allowed when it suits you? You're so damned predictable it's pathetic.

Sorry good Doctor, but I'll take the analysis of professional agencies (and even factcheck and MSNBC) over some message board wanna be expert.

No, you just like to be contentious and insulting.

AGW has a minimal affect on you. You like big gov't and you think that spending money on pointless research counts as "stimulus." You also like to complain, so when gas prices get high, it's "greedy corporations", when your elec bill goes up it's "greedy corporations". And you'll expect the gov't to steal from someone else to subsidize your "needs" if those prices get too high.

In the mean time, you know nothing about math or science, nor do you make any effort to understand the issues. You don't even take time to read the emails, you pretend that linking to discussions about them is meaningful. Arguing and gov't sponsored theft serves as a form of recreation to you, as it has done for fools for millennia. But, in the end, the fools lose, so don't say you weren't warned.

(01-23-2012 04:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  You mean this "fraudulent" data?

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate

Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

The fact that you responded in the disingenuous manner you did was also predictable.

"Some alarmist?"

Did you not see these links in the article I linked?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pres...entreviews
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.../38708.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to...from-.aspx
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangermen...facts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/...vironment/

Well factcheck.org and msnbc! What else could you want?

Tom, you can actually read the emails yourself. I read some of them, I know what they said.

But I did make a mistake, those aren't the only source of fraudulent data. I've posted other times when Hanson presented incorrect data, which he subsequently changed. There are many other sources of incorrect data.

What the emails show is that the "scientists" invovled in this aren't interested in the accuracy of the data, just whether the conclusions support their bias.

Ohhhhh....so attacking the source is now allowed when it suits you? You're so damned predictable it's pathetic.

Sorry good Doctor, but I'll take the analysis of professional agencies (and even factcheck and MSNBC) over some message board wanna be expert.

If the agencies are so professional, then why the debate - why is this not taken as fact?

(01-23-2012 04:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 04:12 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-23-2012 02:43 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes I mean those. And finding some alarmist who is defending them is hardly the rigorous critique that Mach holds so highly.

The fact that you're posting bait is predictable.

The fact that you responded in the disingenuous manner you did was also predictable.

"Some alarmist?"

Did you not see these links in the article I linked?

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/pres...entreviews
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa.../38708.htm
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/Response-to...from-.aspx
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangermen...facts.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/...vironment/

Well factcheck.org and msnbc! What else could you want?

Tom, you can actually read the emails yourself. I read some of them, I know what they said.

But I did make a mistake, those aren't the only source of fraudulent data. I've posted other times when Hanson presented incorrect data, which he subsequently changed. There are many other sources of incorrect data.

What the emails show is that the "scientists" invovled in this aren't interested in the accuracy of the data, just whether the conclusions support their bias.

Ohhhhh....so attacking the source is now allowed when it suits you? You're so damned predictable it's pathetic.

Sorry good Doctor, but I'll take the analysis of professional agencies (and even factcheck and MSNBC) over some message board wanna be expert.

If the agencies are so professional, then why the debate - why is this not taken as fact?

Mainly because the issue is way too political. And I was not stating any fact for or against AGW, only that the analysis of those stolen e-mails by credible agencies and scientists prove that the errors in the reports in no way prove that AGW is a hoax.

SMN

That's where I'm at. Why don't you guys get on board?

(01-23-2012 05:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I was not stating any fact for or against AGW, only that the analysis of those stolen e-mails by credible agencies and scientists prove that the errors in the reports in no way prove that AGW is a hoax.

Yes they do. Even if factcheck doesn't think so.

Here are my questions

1) It bothers me a lot that the response to the "stolen" emails (Isn't that what defense attorneys call evidence obtained without a warrant? It should only matter at this point if they are real... not how they were attained... and best of my knowledge, no crime was committed) is that nothing in those emails refutes "our overall understanding". It SHOULD say (if it could) that the data doesn't call the conclusions into question. Instead, it says it doesn't change the fact that human activity creates CO2, and that in our opinion, large amounts of CO2 will cause warming. Well, yeah. It also doesn't prove what you initially claimed it did... and by falsifying data to support a preconcieved conclusion, you have completely eliminated "science" from the study. It is not the theory I don't trust.,... but those so obviously willing to lie to convince me of the theory. If it is true, then give me the facts and step back.

2) that so many on that side keep wanting to refer to it as "established science" and end the discussion... when virtually NOTHING should be established beyond the willingness of a scientist to examine.

3) that even if I accept that CO2 is bad, which I generally do... short of population controls, exactly what are we supposed top do about it?
3a) I want to know how much pain we're supposed to endure for how much benefit. I mean, if moving my thermostat from 72 to 68 in the winter (which I can probably easily do because it is warmer, right?) gives us ten additional years... or reduces the temperature by a degree in my lifetime, then count me in. If we're talking about $7 gas so that MAYBE we reduce the temperature by a fraction of a degree over 100 years... only a FOOL wouldn't accept that the number of variables in those equations are so numerous that the fraction they are describing is likely well within the margin of error.

Please note that this doesn't mean I don't think we should be good environmental stewards... It just means that you can barely identify the problem without numerous leaps of faith, and CERTAINLY can't identify a solution... yet for some reason, we need to spend literally hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars to potentially do nothing to solve the problem.

(01-23-2012 05:53 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  SMN

That's where I'm at. Why don't you guys get on board?

Mach, its' because I don't believe the professional agencies are acting professionally. I think they have an agenda, just like the EPA, Dept of Labor, etc.