-
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
Nature:Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy
- Thread starter scalyblue
- Start date
In the end it all comes down to one thing MONEY.
It will cost millions if not billions in order to implement the changes, that needs to be made in order to save the climate, and in the end i doubt that any of the companies that need to pay a lot of it will do it if there,´s even the slightest possibility that mankind is not to blame for the changes.
It will cost millions if not billions in order to implement the changes, that needs to be made in order to save the climate, and in the end i doubt that any of the companies that need to pay a lot of it will do it if there,´s even the slightest possibility that mankind is not to blame for the changes.
M.W.T.B.F.
New Member
It's essentially just right-wing conspiracy theorists taking quotes from the emails out of context and using incorrect definitions for the words that the emails use.
For example, one of the emails used the word "trick" as if it could mean a deception, but when taken into context it clearly shows that in that context, the word "trick" was used to mean "A useful method".
potholer54 made an excellent video about it on youtube.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
For example, one of the emails used the word "trick" as if it could mean a deception, but when taken into context it clearly shows that in that context, the word "trick" was used to mean "A useful method".
potholer54 made an excellent video about it on youtube.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
The emails show that skepticism isn't allowed in the 'debate' of 'anthropomorphic climate change', which is [Supposed to be] the corner stone of the scientific method. So for a major news source to white-wash this leak... well, it says nothing about the quality of the leak and everything about the fallibility of the news. And remarks made upon the comments of the media at the moment ALSO say nothing [In terms of it's implications] of the leaked information; Sound-bytes never add any honesty to any debate...
Giliell
New Member
If anybody ever needs proof that coloidial silver affects the brain, just link this site.
I think Grimlock is right, it always comes down to money, and in a society where the most important number is that of the stockmarket today, companies will avoid to invest money that might only pay back in 15 years time and even then indirectly.
Real problem is short-sighted politicions who also only care about today and the next election, who do what's popular instead of what's right
I think Grimlock is right, it always comes down to money, and in a society where the most important number is that of the stockmarket today, companies will avoid to invest money that might only pay back in 15 years time and even then indirectly.
Real problem is short-sighted politicions who also only care about today and the next election, who do what's popular instead of what's right
borrofburi
New Member
You really like making claims, perhaps you could at least try to back them up with evidence?Niocan said:
Niocan said:
Perhaps you missed the email where the guy talks about it being "a travesty" that the real world data didn't match up to prediction? You know, that email that linked to the scientific paper, published in the peer reviewed literature, that discussed the issue at length, written by the same guy? It was even mentioned in the potholer video.
Not allowed? horseshit, did you even read any of the emails or links?
OnkelCannabia
New Member
Niocan said:
I'm glad you are not one of those who mistake a smear campaign for a debate
DeistPaladin
New Member
Question:
A good conspiracy theory should involve a clear motive on the part of the conspirators (money, power, etc.).
What's the motivation of international scientists to falsely promote alarm about climate change? Has anyone ever offered anything?
[Sarcasm:]
Perhaps the oh-so-powerful-and-wealthy wind and solar industry is behind it?
A good conspiracy theory should involve a clear motive on the part of the conspirators (money, power, etc.).
What's the motivation of international scientists to falsely promote alarm about climate change? Has anyone ever offered anything?
[Sarcasm:]
Perhaps the oh-so-powerful-and-wealthy wind and solar industry is behind it?
borrofburi
New Member
It's not the scientists, it's the government. If you pass some form of "carbon tax" you have to monitor a person's lifestyle to see what their carbon "footprint" really is, which means you get to monitor their entire lives, it's the first step to controlling every part of someone's life, it's a way to expand the government's power to tell you what to do and when to do it.DeistPaladin said:
Or so the theory goes anyway. And I can't blame them, the few treaties or proposals I've read have sincerely frightened me, so I see where they're coming from.
Giliell
New Member
Sorry but that's stupidborrofburi said:
And I can tell because we've got such taxes.
They're simply added to the price of the energy. The government doesn't know how much gas I use and where I drive to or even how much electricity.
And what I simply don't like about those methods is that rich people whose lifestyle uses a lot of energy don't care much if they have to pay 5% more while poorer people can't afford to take their kids to the zoo anymore.
No, if it's about governnment control, 9/11 makes a much better conspiracy because that was heavily exploited to cut down our civil liberties and to implement meassures to control our lives and people were even greatful because they felt protected.
(disclaimer: I don't believe in any of those conspiracies, 9/11 was more like a windfall for Bush and other people who regard 1984 as a manual)
DeistPaladin
New Member
I think there is a general mistrust of scientists at times.
We see the same kind of "Darwinist" conspiracy talk from Creationists. Stein's movie (yes, I survived that train-wreck) essentially alleged that there was a massive international conspiracy by a controlling atheist junta to surpress all the contrary evidence to evolution.
My first question after seeing the movie was the same. What's the motive? Is there money to be made of evolution? Can political power be accumulated through it's promotion? I sure don't see how.
New Rule: (in the spirit of Bill Mahar)
If you're going to allege a conspiracy, you have to spell out some kind of plausible motive.
We see the same kind of "Darwinist" conspiracy talk from Creationists. Stein's movie (yes, I survived that train-wreck) essentially alleged that there was a massive international conspiracy by a controlling atheist junta to surpress all the contrary evidence to evolution.
My first question after seeing the movie was the same. What's the motive? Is there money to be made of evolution? Can political power be accumulated through it's promotion? I sure don't see how.
New Rule: (in the spirit of Bill Mahar)
If you're going to allege a conspiracy, you have to spell out some kind of plausible motive.
Niocan said:
Niocan, can you provide me a specific example within the emails of where this is demonstrated? What I've seen of the emails indicates a healthy and open debate in which the scientists in question are having an open and frank discussion about the evidence. By the way, if you do provide evidence, I would appreciate a link to the actual text, rather than an out of context blurb to avoid any problems with quote mining. It shouldn't be too difficult. If these scientists are as dogmatic as you say then the hundreds of emails pulled should demonstrate overwhelming evidence of such bias.
I cannot, though I can point you to what I've seen to be a very good overview of this situation. Think of this action as you will, but I don't save every little detail that I come across >.>Mapp said:
Alternatively, one can go through the FOI2009.zip file themselves to search for whatever they like to prove whatever side they want.
That really doesn't answer my challenge at all. What I asked for was the emails themselves. Again, it should be fairly easy to demonstrate that these scientists are actively working to crush opposition to their ideas. Surely they mentioned it once in their emails. I also said, the complete emails, not blurbs that could be quote-mined. What you've done is provide a link to a series of articles that, when they engage with the emails, selectively quote bits of them, interspersed with unrelated information. This is simply inadequate to prove a conspiracy, and I'm not saying that because I'm dismissing the point of view this blogger supports. I do note, however that many of the claims he makes about what the emails purportedly say have already been debunked conclusively. Furthermore, even if we take these as read, emails that express doubts about the theory are hardly evidence of scientists suppressing doubt.
Again, if there is such a dogmatic conspiracy in play, it should be self-evident from the emails themselves. Remember these are private emails between scientists that were never meant for public dissemination. There is no encoding or hidden messages within here.
If these emails say what anti-climate change people claim they say, then where is the proverbial Zimmerman Telegram?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram] that essentially states, here's our conspiracy and here's how we mean to keep it from the public?
Again, if there is such a dogmatic conspiracy in play, it should be self-evident from the emails themselves. Remember these are private emails between scientists that were never meant for public dissemination. There is no encoding or hidden messages within here.
If these emails say what anti-climate change people claim they say, then where is the proverbial Zimmerman Telegram?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram] that essentially states, here's our conspiracy and here's how we mean to keep it from the public?
Niocan said:
You can, you're either too lazy to put in the footwork, or too afraid that you won't find what you're looking for.
You can't prove whatever side you want, because the contents of the emails are not ambiguous. There isn't anything in the emails that indicates a conspiracy.
