Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorOddcult
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009 edited
     (7293.1)
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    So, a few selectively chosen lines from some leaked/hacked emails, quoted without context, utterly and without any shadow of any doubt whatsoever have proved that the theory that global warming is caused by human activity is a big vast left wing hoax.

    Who'd have guessed? So, it's all over then and the leftist enviromentofascist plot to make people with big cars pay higher taxes has been blown wide open.

    These emails, relating to some statistical analysis of a series of tree rings and the difficulty in matching the datasets to other measurements, and some creative techniques used to attempt to understand the anomalous information presented, have, pretty much on their own, proven all the other climate models and data anaysis to be a lie and a conspiracy by science-ists.

    I'm so glad that's all been cleared up. And seeing as it doesn't matter any more, I'm off to light some farts.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7293.2)
    Now the world can move on to fighting the REAL evil destructive force of our time, ACORN.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7293.3)
    The interesting thing here is that the thousand-odd e-mails released are scattered over several years and there seems to be logical pattern to them.

    It looks like the hacker scanned the database for certain key words (like "trick") and posted online everything that matched.

    So these are the most incriminating e-mails they could find - and they're realyl not very incriminating at all - no mention of the massive global left-wing conspiracy. No mention of the fat money they're ripping off from the suckers.

    And as with Al Gore's power bill, isn't it nice to once again see how the denialist right is so deeply attached to others right to privacy.
  1.  (7293.4)
    Yeah, I was looking into this situation after my "Never met a wackjob theory I didn't like" friend posted it on his FaceBook.

    It's a few scientists trying their hand at the typical bullshit high school level politics that passes as "Climate change debate" and getting caught on it. Their reputations have been sullied, but the data remains fine.
  2.  (7293.5)
    Well obviously global warming is BS if scientists have to debate it to figure it out. Everybody knows that the truth is found in the bible and that you only need one person to reveal it while everyone else nods along.
    • CommentAuthorSteadyUP
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7293.6)
    You had me at "science-ists".
    • CommentAuthorZombi
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.7)
    Well, to be perfectly honest, it's not unthinkable that a few scientists have fuelled the fire and made it look slightly worse than it is. Crisis maximization = research $$$.

    That the entire thing is a hoax, and that those excerpts prove it? Not likely.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.8)
    "Crisis maximization = research $$$."

    Anybody dumb enough to go into science for the money is too dumb to get a science degree.

    Also, 99% of science grants operate on the basis that the contract is with the institution which pays the individual researchers a fixed salary regardless of what they're working on.

    Anybody who knows enough computer science to work as a climatologist could make 10 times more (conservatively) working as a quantitative analyst for a Wall Street brokerage.
    • CommentAuthorRedwynd
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.9)
    @Kosmopolit:

    I think Zombi's referring to funding for research projects... something that has been in short supply in North America for several years now. The grants you're referring to may not pay salaries, but research doesn't happen unless someone is footing the bill. That said, I sincerely doubt anyone mentioned in the emails would be stupid enough to try a stunt like this, data theft is being treated pretty seriously these days.
  3.  (7293.10)
    Wow, this should be used as a sample text to study logical fallacies.
  4.  (7293.11)
    Now the world can move on to fighting the REAL evil destructive force of our time, ACORN.
    And JEW DEBIL SOROS!!!!!!!!!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJH
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009 edited
     (7293.12)
    What I've never understood is the other side's arguements... Ok, lets say for a second... just for the sake of arguement... that despite the preponderance of evidence: Global Warming doesn't exist.

    (I almost typed: Global Frequency doesn't exist)

    Anyway, lets just say that Global Warming doesn't exist... what is the downside of putting programs into place to ensure that it doesn't end up coming true?

    Lets say that Bill O'reilly and the bible are right and Al Gore is lying just for attention and that Global Warming is all a big lie... why is having eco-friendly options a bad thing?

    Are they really that threatened by energy-effiecient lightbulbs?

    I just don't get it.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.13)
    > I just don't get it.

    Apparently there are people who don't want to do things (replace their lightbulbs), don't want to be taxed (carbon taxes), don't want change (or, only want a certain sort of change), don't want to lose their jobs (building cars, digging coal), and/or who (sometimes, perhaps depending on the message and/or on the messenger) resent being told what to do.

    Furthermore, one of the latest headlines is Price of global warming cuts may stop deal at U.N. meeting. That headline doesn't seem to me to be borne out by the fine print of the article: but still, maybe it's just the headline that matters.
  5.  (7293.14)
    Dumb arse head in the sand wankers. I find it weird that the very same reactionaries who deny global warming are the same types that bleat about "think of the children." Cognitive dissonance ahoy!

    The other thing that bewilders me is them going. "Ah it's not man made!" like that's a solution. Even if it wasn't we would need to be retarded to think our current behaviours were not exacerbating it and that since climate change is clearly happening, it's downright insane not to want to adapt. Unless of course all of them are dreaming of a future in which they are "Lord Humungus."
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJH
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.15)
    Unless of course all of them are dreaming of a future in which they are "Lord Humungus."


    Well... admittedly... who doesn't?
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.16)
    I'm pretty much convinced that nothing will be done until the floods and famines start, and large swathes of the American Midwest are churned into rubble by giant tornadoes.

    Of course, the die-hards will still blame it all on sunspots, Muslims, and gay marriage.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7293.17)
    @StefanJ

    Gay Muslim sunspots.
  6.  (7293.18)
    http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/uk-hack-puts-climate-scientists-personal-e-mails-on-display.ars I believe this ArsTech article puts the emails and what's occurring in them into perspective. However... it's already been touted about as a tale of climate fraud and conspiracy. In the household I'm part of, I've already been an unwilling participant in tales of how the scientists are out to get us, and it's not the first time I've heard such paranoid keening over the dinner table. Science is scary to a lot of people, and seems to be growing comprehensibly complex and pervasive, with 'scientists' not being viewed as human beings, but as more archetypal figures, kept on pedestals and tossed labels according to current whim and fad. Its easier than thinking of them as people, or of science as a process that is constantly changing.

    I believe the 'threat' of green living comes from a very basic human fear. The fear of the different, and the unknown; and a willingness to lash out at what we don't understand and fear. It's easier to panic and lash out then to put that fear on a leash and try to understand something. In different cultures, the threat level is different; as is the social pressure for living greenly.

    Anyhow. What I believe we're viewing is a human fear reaction to something different and 'scary'; a scientific community with its guts and offal spread out for the public eye, far from the mythic white-labcoat wearing, pristine and jargon-speaking creature.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
     (7293.19)

    Anyway, lets just say that Global Warming doesn't exist... what is the downside of putting programs into place to ensure that it doesn't end up coming true?


    That's why the entire thing is stupid. It's two factions arguing over something that will benefit everyone. The big problem with the Global Warming thing is the steps that government are wanting to take would actually hurt people and set things back. Everyone can agree that a clean planet and less pollution are a good thing. Both sides are cherry picking data to support their arguments. If our idiots in power wanted to actually do something useful that wouldn't be trying things like Cap and trade which will just make it harder for many people to pay their bills and give tax incentives to companies who are specializing in clean power. Quit trying to force companies into the mold they want and make them want to do it. Quit with the stupid scare tactics too.
    • CommentAuthorgzapata
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009 edited
     (7293.20)
    ^Actually it's not really suppose to raise taxes on people by much at all though it is hard to predict where our technology will be at in a decade or so

    *atleast that's what the data says