-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Climate emails: Professor vs Sceptic
- Thread starter Aught3
- Start date
hehe, great last line. The problem is that the climate skeptics tend to be the media savvy types who come accross boistrous and confident, whereas the guys who know their shit tend to be pretty reserved. I've read quite a number of the emails from teh CRU release, admitedly not all, and it's all taken miles out of context.
The "trick" is just pure bullshit, its the recognition that tree ring data does not give accurate readings since 1960, so instead of using data known to be faulty, they insert real world measured temperatures.
The "trick" is just pure bullshit, its the recognition that tree ring data does not give accurate readings since 1960, so instead of using data known to be faulty, they insert real world measured temperatures.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Two points:
One: in the hundreds of thousands of emails stolen, they only point to the same two over and over again... and those have been explained pretty well. How the FUCK is this a massive scandal worth discussing?
Two: If the science is bad, why can't they find a scientist to say so? They put someone who actually knows stuff, a real scientist, up against some fucking shithole right-wing political operative... and then pretend that the scientists are the ones being swayed by politics?
Three: That guy IS an asshole. :lol:
One: in the hundreds of thousands of emails stolen, they only point to the same two over and over again... and those have been explained pretty well. How the FUCK is this a massive scandal worth discussing?
Two: If the science is bad, why can't they find a scientist to say so? They put someone who actually knows stuff, a real scientist, up against some fucking shithole right-wing political operative... and then pretend that the scientists are the ones being swayed by politics?
Three: That guy IS an asshole. :lol:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
What's weird is that much of the raw data is pretty readily available, from what I've been reading on the subject. I've actually heard about some of the deniers taking the raw data and whining that it doesn't match the corrected data, and claiming that there's an issue with that too. You can't win either way.Aught3 said:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
"Climategate" is starting to look a little like Watergate, with right-wing goon squads looking to break into climate scientist's computers in more than one place.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2301809
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2301809
dr_esteban
New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
this is just another example of why i have no respect for people the vote right wing
D
Deleted member 499
Guest
Aught3 said:
Seconded, I also liked "Will you shut up just a second"
On a more serious note this largely sums up the entire argument over this particular issue. You have people like Prof. Watson trying to calmly and rationally explain what the e-mails actually mean on one side and on the other there are people who substitude for knowledge with volume. Unfortunately hysteria produces good soundbites and stories for the media so that's what is getting picked up.
The reason this is a scandal is because it provides the politicians in the US, who are all bought and owned by coperations (amongst these coperations ofcourse the oil market), get an excuse not to make responsible laws against co2 emition. There's simply no way of winning an election in the US without chanting something among the lines of "HURR DURR I WILL PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE!!" and a part of that way of life is simply being irresponsible about the enviroment.
Of course you also have to take into account the impossibility of getting elected if you're fighting the coperations, since they can throw as much money as they wish into smearing you during the campaign, and we all know people are easily distracted by shiny graphics and dumb guys screaming "YOU LIE!"
Of course you also have to take into account the impossibility of getting elected if you're fighting the coperations, since they can throw as much money as they wish into smearing you during the campaign, and we all know people are easily distracted by shiny graphics and dumb guys screaming "YOU LIE!"
OnkelCannabia
New Member
Potholer54 has just released a video about the e-mails:
His whole series about climate change is superb. "greenman3610" also has a very good series debunking "sceptics". He has more videos than Potholer54 and goes a bit more into detail.
His whole series about climate change is superb. "greenman3610" also has a very good series debunking "sceptics". He has more videos than Potholer54 and goes a bit more into detail.
IrBubble said:
Ehh, not ALL American politicians are controlled by corporations. Some of them are controlled by special interest groups (which are in turn controlled by corporations...).
But the one thing you can say about our elections is that they're funny as hell to watch. You won't get that much hate and vitriol anywhere else, except a creationism vs. evolution debate of course.
M.W.T.B.F.
New Member
My problem with global warming skeptics is that they often use phrases like, "I am 100% certain." or "There is no doubt in my mind." The fact that they are unwilling to accept that they may be wrong at all and then go on to often simply state that certain data doesn't add up (Where exactly this data is and who compiled it is rarely mentioned, at least in what I've seen) as absolute 100% infallible proof of their beliefs always makes me angry (But what doesn't?)
borrofburi
New Member
Kind of ruins the whole "skeptic" word they stole...M.W.T.B.F. said:
ImprobableJoe
New Member
What, locally? That's not climate, that's weather. The global temperature is going up, but that causes shifts in the currents that changes local weather in both direction.Don-Sama said: