CRU hacked, all information (emails) online

[Aught3]

Niocan MUST be a troll... he's picked "stupid" as his position on every topic he's posted to. There's no way someone could be so wrong on EVERY topic... I refuse to believe that he isn't doing it on purpose to get a rise out of people.

Oh Joe! You just have too much faith in people.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Oh Joe! You just have too much faith in people.

That's it. I'm an innocent, a complete Pollyanna. There's no one less cynical than me... :lol:

 

[Aught3]

Another summary of the situation:

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-sceptics.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn18192

 

[Niocan]

Sorry, but as much as you'd like to think so I'm not a troll; Only rather vocal about the subjects I know of.

Total control through carbon taxes? What are you talking about? This just sounds like complete and utter bull shit. There's no other way to say that.

Have you ever read the treaty in question? Try being a rational human instead of a douche.

And there are plenty of political motivations for denying human-caused climate change: maintenance of the fossil-fuel based economy, dodging of the need to spend money to reduce air pollution, keeping your inexpensive car instead of a hybrid...the political reasons are endless and they all equate to one thing: maintaining the status quo and avoiding change to our economy.

An external threat isn't needed to drive change, but within a corrupt system it's one of the greatest drives.. Your mentality is that of: problem, reaction, solution.

No. Common sense is useless in determining scientific knowledge. Cite a paper or you're no better than creationists claiming that the universe must have been created by god since anything else just "doesn't make sense."

It is your (the main) argument that goes against common sense, not mine. It takes a lot of social conditioning to think that a trace, natural, gas can harm the planet in such a huge degree whilst at the same time denying the actions and effects of the Sun and clouds.

The fact that it's a very small part of our atmosphere is meaningless unless you have a climatologist backing you up, saying that this means it's not significant. Oh, and more than CO2 matters;

Funny how that works eh? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion and lets not kid ourselves; The scientists are the same as always but it's far easier to get a grant if its in support of AGW. Think about it.
As for CO2 being the only thing: It is, in the minds of those "climatologists".

 

[borrofburi]

See this makes sense when you realize that the main point in question (Carbon dioxide levels) makes up a total of .04% of the atmosphere

This is stupid. There are plenty of molecules that have major effects even at the small amount of 0.04%; I bet I can find at least one molecule that if it makes up 0.04% of your body it'll kill you or cause severe problems.

who we know lie pretty much all of the time their lips are moving

Considering the source, I'll take this with a few grains of salt...

Have you ever read the treaty in question?

I have to admit that treaty scares me (along with a couple others in the works on various topics).

 

[OnkelCannabia]

 

[IrBubble]

It is your (the main) argument that goes against common sense, not mine. It takes a lot of social conditioning to think that a trace, natural, gas can harm the planet in such a huge degree whilst at the same time denying the actions and effects of the Sun and clouds.

It all depends on how you define harming the planet. If you define harming the planet as making it inhabitable for humans, it can. If you mean harming the planet as in blowing it into smitherines or making it inhabitable to any life, probably not. And if you think that small substances cannot harm you, then indeed, try getting 0.5% alcohol in your blood and see how that works out for you, or try getting a drop of nicotine on your tounge. Both of these are natural, thus these small amounts cannot POSSIBLY harm you.

By the way, if you did not realise it, do not do either of those things, they are deadly.

As for the clouds and the sun, nobody is saying these do not have an effect, they are saying that our greenhouse gas emitions do aswell, and that our greenhouse gas emitions might cause irreversible damage. Your mentality is equal to saying that we can nuke the shit out of our planet, it evidently has no effect as the real effects come from whether or not we are hit by asteriods.

Funny how that works eh? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion and lets not kid ourselves; The scientists are the same as always but it's far easier to get a grant if its in support of AGW. Think about it.
As for CO2 being the only thing: It is, in the minds of those "climatologists".

The mental gymnastics you're mentioning is called thinking by us, and that's not the way we use mental gymnastics. The conclusion stands, you're not qualified to say if the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is detrimental or not. Basic common sense will not do, as demonstated above.

 

[Nogre]

Have you ever read the treaty in question? Try being a rational human instead of a douche.

No, I haven't read that treaty. Given that, what about thinking "Total control over the peoples lives via the carbon tax scandal" sounds like complete and utter bull shit makes me a douche? It sounds like just another crazy doomsday "the government is controlling our minds!" conspiracy theory. By the way, you'll have to summarize that treaty or give me a link to a summary, because I'm just not willing to go through 181 pages of dense legal jargon.

An external threat isn't needed to drive change, but within a corrupt system it's one of the greatest drives.. Your mentality is that of: problem, reaction, solution.

Uh...yes, I do operate under a mentality of "problem and solution." I'm studying to be an engineer. We solve problems. That's how we make the world a better place. But that doesn't mean we create problems. And if you're going to say that mentality is bad, say goodbye to all modern society. :facepalm: And this is just an ad hoc argument to prevent me from asking any real details on where all this bad stuff is coming from. Come now; let's not pretend the government is some big, evil, inhuman monster waiting to suck our brains out through our noses. Governments are made up of human beings too. Sometimes they're very messed up human beings, but they are generally trying to make the world a better place, even if they're often mistaken about how to do so.

It is your (the main) argument that goes against common sense, not mine. It takes a lot of social conditioning to think that a trace, natural, gas can harm the planet in such a huge degree whilst at the same time denying the actions and effects of the Sun and clouds.

Uh...I think you miss the point. "Common sense is useless in determining scientific knowledge" can't be refuted by an appeal to common sense supporting your side. The sun has a very large effect on our climate, but there's been no solid evidence for increased solar output in recent times, at least any increase beyond the normal fluctuations in the solar cycle, and that's the ultimate cause behind both of the alternative theories to anthropogenic climate change, including the theory about cloud cover.

Funny how that works eh? It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at that conclusion and lets not kid ourselves; The scientists are the same as always but it's far easier to get a grant if its in support of AGW. Think about it.

IrBubble has already handled this sufficiently, so just read what he said.

As for CO2 being the only thing: It is, in the minds of those "climatologists".

Seriously? You really must not pay attention to any serious scientists. It's very well accepted that methane is significantly more powerful than carbon is at trapping heat. Carbon dioxide just happens to be the gas that's being poured into the atmosphere in obsecene amounts by our burning of fossil fuels, so that's become the focus in politics. But the politics of climate change is very different from the science of climate change.