Quote :

"studies will come out and say coffee is good for you then a year later a study will come out and say it gives you cancer"

That's why there is no consensus about the health benefits of coffee.

12/2/2009 7:58:23 PM

Ya, the only consensus about coffee is that you're going to be running to pee or shit in an hour.

12/2/2009 8:00:00 PM

Quote :

"You showed that a consensus NOT based on science means nothing in science."

Bullshit. it was absolutely based on science. it was based on science as they knew it. it was based upon observation. They just weren't doing the right observation. It's absolute bullshit to try and say that it's not "science" because it's not what we know today

Quote :

"IMO, we may have been keeping accurate temperatures for a hundred years or more in a lot of places, but we have more conjecture and inferred fact on things that are thousands of years old. Clearly some of this is logical conclusions taken to extremes."

But, we really haven't been keeping accurate temperature records. We've been keeping records, for sure. But the accuracy of those records is certainly suspect. For instance, look at the survey of US surface stations. As well, we know that urban areas tend to have higher ground temperatures than rural areas. Of course, Hansen recently removed corrections for this fact from the official US temperature records, so...

12/2/2009 8:00:22 PM

^ Things like that are why I wouldn't presume to debate the veracity of claims from either side. I'm just pointing out that there's some pretty stupid overreactions coming from both sides.

12/2/2009 8:03:23 PM

^^^,^^^^yeah but the point is that just because we're a lot more modern than having a consensus on the earth being in the center of the universe doesnt mean studies cant misinterpret data and draw false or misleading conclusions

12/2/2009 8:04:02 PM

Quote :

"Every scientist used to think that there was a "life force" that brought life from dead things."

Quote :

"Bullshit. it was absolutely based on science. it was based on science as they knew it."

Wait, ere you talking about spontaneous generation? As far as I know, that all pre-dated the scientific method, and is not based on science as we currently define it. And yes, that does matter if you are trying to relate a scientific consensus today to one of Antiquities. There is no denying that a scientific consensus means a lot more today.

Regardless, even though a consensus can be shown to be wrong, it does not mean it is worth nothing. That is a completely ignorant thing to say.

It would take far more than a single piece of evidence to disprove global warming because there is a body of evidence of enormous breadth and depth.

12/2/2009 8:37:35 PM

Quote :

"It would take far more than a single piece of evidence to disprove global warming because there is a body of evidence of enormous breadth and depth."

you, sir, don't understand science if you believe that. I guess the fact that all of that supposed evidence is based on computer models that can't replicate what is happening today is of no import to you, right? You are exactly what you claim deniers are: someone who only looks at evidence that he agrees with.

Quote :

"Regardless, even though a consensus can be shown to be wrong, it does not mean it is worth nothing. That is a completely ignorant thing to say."

In the realm of science, it most certainly means nothing. Nowhere in science does it say that consensus counts as any kind of evidence.

Quote :

"Wait, ere you talking about spontaneous generation? As far as I know, that all pre-dated the scientific method"

You might wanna do a little research as to when the scientific method originated, dude.

Quote :

"and is not based on science as we currently define it."

I'll say it again:

Quote :

"It's absolute bullshit to try and say that it's not "science" because it's not what we know today"

In short, when you have to resort to "consensus," it generally means you don't have enough actual scientific evidence

12/2/2009 8:39:25 PM

You seem to be forgetting your point.

Quote :

"In the realm of science, it most certainly means nothing."

You still have yet to demonstrate this.

Quote :

"Nowhere in science does it say that consensus counts as any kind of evidence."

No one has said this.

Quote :

"You might wanna do a little research as to when the scientific method originated, dude."

The scientific method as we know it originated in the 20th century.

Quote :

"In short, when you have to resort to "consensus,""

I havent resorted to anything, you fuckwit. Stop trying to attack me and deflect things. I'm challenging your assertion that a consensus means nothing. All you can say is that because a consensus can be wrong, it means nothing. That is an overly simplistic view of the subject and shows your ignorance.

Can you possibly put a little more intellectual effort into this? Otherwise, I'm done here because you have nothing.

12/2/2009 8:58:51 PM

Quote :

"You still have yet to demonstrate this."

You have yet to demonstrate that it means anything. You are the one saying it means something, not me...

Quote :

"No one has said this. "

ANd what, exactly, do you think science cares about? I'll give you a hint: it's more likely to care about evidence than it does consensus.

Quote :

"The scientific method as we know it originated in the 20th century. "

that's a lie, and you know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method#Early_modern_methodologists
Fucking GALILEO, dude. I suppose he was around in 1945, though, right?

Quote :

"I havent resorted to anything, you fuckwit."

you sure are making a huge fucking deal out of the alleged consensus.

Quote :

"Can you possibly put a little more intellectual effort into this? Otherwise, I'm done here because you have nothing."

So, what you are really saying is that I am so majorly owning you that you want to run away. Thanks

12/2/2009 9:02:49 PM

Quote :

"You have yet to demonstrate that it means anything. "

Oh, there's the intellectually lazy response I expected. Put the burden back on me. Do you realize the situation you're in of proving a negative? All I have to do is provide one way a consensus means something and you're wrong.

And here it is: A consensus is valuable as a form of communication between scientists to convey a summary of the subject of study.

12/2/2009 9:27:09 PM

Welp, I'm bored with this now. Anybody wanna go light an oil refinery on fire?

12/2/2009 9:29:03 PM

that's because the burden IS ON YOU. it always has been. YOU are the one positing that it means something!

Quote :

"And here it is: A consensus is valuable as a form of communication between scientists to convey a summary of the subject of study."

yes, because published articles don't do that on their own...

[Edited on December 2, 2009 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ]

12/2/2009 9:29:14 PM

I posted evidence that a consensus exists because dopehead said there wasn't one. You replied saying a consensus doesn't matter.

All I have been doing is trying to get your vacuous skull to come up with a defense for that. And you can't, because you have little understanding of the subject and you just want to deflect and attack and provide snarky remarks because you're mad at me for making you prove something you can't.

12/2/2009 9:45:56 PM

damn you move the goalposts a lot, man.

I've already debunked your theory of a "consensus." I beat the hell out of your claim that a consensus means nothing. I even assraped you when you said that the scientific method was a 20th century creation. face it, man, you are wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

again, you are exactly what you claim the deniers to be. someone who ignores all evidence that is incovenient


and, AGAIN, I don't have to defend the statement that consensus doesn't matter. YOU ARE THE ONE POSITING THAT IT DOES MATTER. you made the initial statement. defend your statement, dipshit.

12/2/2009 9:49:34 PM

i'm gonna have to go burn down the oil refinery on my own.

12/2/2009 9:53:08 PM

sorry, man. need some help?

12/2/2009 9:58:21 PM

The problem is that the oil refinery likely has insurance and they will just build another refinery albeit there is a chance it will be less polluting but I don't have that much faith in people. Plus, what about the pollution caused just by simply burning it down? I like your thinking though.

12/2/2009 9:58:36 PM

Well, it's settled. You're a delusional moron. But for the record:

Quote :

"I even assraped you when you said that the scientific method was a 20th century creation."

I didn't say it was a 20th century creation. I'm not that stupid. I said the scientific method as we know it originated in the 20th century. The method has continually evolved, and the latest advancements made to it have happened in the 20th century to make it what it is today.

But go ahead and erroneously accuse me of some logical fallacy again because you misinterpreted reality...

12/2/2009 10:10:38 PM

I tried to lighten the mood a little. You guys saw me, right?

12/2/2009 10:12:57 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say it was a 20th century creation. I'm not that stupid. I said the scientific method as we know it originated in the 20th century."

the two statements are almost analogous. jeez, you are reaching. it's pathetic watching you squirm, man.

12/2/2009 10:13:42 PM

Almost analagous but not quite... I know in your black and white mind these subtleties can be challenging.

12/2/2009 10:18:25 PM

they lied for years and years about the data b/c they couldn't show evidence of global warming

it's over.

12/2/2009 11:44:40 PM

that's an overexaggeration. can we have a little less hyperbole?

12/2/2009 11:45:48 PM

this is like getting shot literally in the head and saying you don't need to go to the doctor.


you can keep pretending this isn't happening all you want man^
you'll be all alone soon enough.

12/2/2009 11:49:57 PM

this is your problem. you didn't bother reading anything i posted above. you're knee-jerk reacting.

12/2/2009 11:51:39 PM

ok let's use step 4 of the scientific method as the example!

4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove


The consequences of our conjecture states that if global warming is true then over the period of years and years the earths temperature will gradually rise!

That didn't happen, so let's go into fantasy reality to save our jobs and support our political 'leaders' with whom we agree the most and keep them in office!

Step 4 failed. Go back to step 2 of scientific method!!!!

Man that is just toooooooooooooo trivial!!!

12/3/2009 12:00:19 AM

My hypothesis is that you're aaronburro's troll alias.

12/3/2009 12:10:35 AM

it's ok guys. stop getting so offended by it. the scientific method proved you wrong and you had to lie for years to cover it up.

just admit you are wrong, go back to step 2 and start thinking again. holy shit. whats the big fuckin deal?

12/3/2009 12:13:52 AM

i'm trying to figure out how i got lumped in. i'm just complaining about the partisan bent here.

12/3/2009 12:22:39 AM

pack_bryan, I'm glad you joined the discussion in this thread, but please think before you post. Sometimes it comes off as pretty petty and lacking information

carzak, the reason it is on you and AGW believers is b/c you are the ones hypothesizing that something is amiss. In science you always look for the easiest explanation to a phenomena (or whatever it is you are studying). Claiming that humans are causing climate change (when climate change has been around since the creation of the planet) is far from the easiest explanation.

And claiming that "all these scientific organizations" believe in AGW is a bit misleading. Many of the scientists in these organizations don't believe or are skeptical. And even in the instance that they take it to a vote you won't find out what the count was.

The sheer ridiculousness of the IPCC is how biased it is. It was created to find out the implications of human caused climate change. Notice how they skipped over the whole process of "are humans to blame for global warming".

In other news it's good to see Phil Jones stepping down (temporarily but hopefully for good). And the same goes for Michael Mann being suspended at PSU pending an investigation. He's been an embarassment to the scientific community for too long.

12/3/2009 9:15:44 AM

Details emerge on PSU investigation of Mann
November 30, 2009

Quote :

"More details on the pending inquiry into the conduct of Dr. Michael E. Mann, professor of meteorology at Penn State University, were revealed today in Penn State's student newspaper. But this inquiry still leaves many questions unanswered. Mann, of Hockey Stick fame, is named in at least 271 e-mails and one eleven-page copy of a letter by him to a US congressional committee that had inquired into his work in 2005. Though Penn State does not state officially what prompted their inquiry, the student newspaper, The Daily Collegian, mentions the request made to Mann by Phil Jones, director of the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, that he delete certain e-mails relating to the then-upcoming Fourth Assessment Report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lisa Powers, spokeswoman for Penn State, told The Daily Collegian that an ad hoc committee would review each and every one of the e-mails, a process that 'could take quite some time.' Mann himself indicated to the student paper that he was not afraid of the inquiry. When The Daily Collegian asked Mann about Phil Jones' request for deletion of information, Mann acknowledged having received the request, but denied having made any deletions himself and suggested that no one else did, either. But that statement is at variance, not only with Phil Jones' initial letter to Mann, but also with Mann's immediate reply. In File No. 1212073451.txt, Phil Jones makes this specific request: Mike: Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. The 'Keith' referred to is never identified but is most probably Keith Briffa, Jones' second-in-command at CRU. 'AR4' refers to Fourth Assessment Report, the latest such report issued by the UN-IPCC. The 'Gene' presumably is Eugene R. Wahl, who is now employed at the National Climatic Data Center as part of its Paleoclimatology program. And in File No. 1212063122.txt (Mann to Jones, on subject "Re IPCC & FOI"), Mann makes this especially damaging statement: I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx The above e-mail is (or was) a personal e-mail. A request-for-comment at Dr. Wahl's official e-mail address at NCDC is now pending. The reply e-mail carries a timestamp on May 29, 2008, consistent with Wahl's employment at NCDC. Hockey Stick graph (from WMO 1999 report)Mann also said this concerning Jones: 'Someone being constantly under attack could be what causes them to make a poor decision.' He did not say what that 'poor decision' might have been or whether he had considered Jones' request to him appropriate or inappropriate. Mann is most famous for promulgating the 'Hockey Stick' graph that appeared in the World Meteorogical Organization's 1999 statement on climate change. Skepticism about the accuracy of that graph came to a head in 2005 and was the subject of two separate reviews that apparently came to two different conclusions about it, one from the National Academy of Sciences and the other from an ad hoc committee chaired by Edward Wegman of George Mason University. Separately, according to the Financial Post (Canada), the University of East Anglia abruptly released all the data it had on Saturday, and announced plans to conduct an investigation of their own."

http://tinyurl.com/yk3rrlp

12/3/2009 10:18:18 AM

Quote :

"Those explanations didn't reassure some Republican members of the committee. In response, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said he was stunned by their skepticism. He said if global warming is a fraud, it must be perpetrated by a conspiracy of scientists from all around the world. "I just wanted to ask you if you're part of that massive international conspiracy," he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, "Are either one of your members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer.""

lol. Really, though. The Republican in the conversation used the term "scientific fascism."

12/3/2009 10:54:34 AM

It's a cabal of scientists from around the world that have conspired for 30+ years to lie to the entire world about the environment, for the purposes of making themselves and their scientist friends very rich.

12/3/2009 11:04:26 AM

Lot of interesting stuff in this article.

Quote :

"Climategate: Why it matters The scandal we see and the scandal we don't Analysis Reading the Climategate archive is a bit like discovering that Professional Wrestling is rigged. You mean, it is? Really? The archive - a carefully curated 160MB collection of source code, emails and other documents from the internal network of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - provides grim confirmation for critics of climate science. But it also raises far more troubling questions. Perhaps the real scandal is the dependence of media and politicians on their academics' work - an ask-no-questions approach that saw them surrender much of their power, and ultimately authority. This doesn't absolve the CRU crew of the charges, but might put it into a better context. After a week of scrutiny of the emails, attention is now turning to the programming source code. Three quarters of the material released is the work of the academics, much of which they had jealously guarded. This includes a version of the world's most cited and respected temperature record - HADCRUT - and a number of surveys which featured prominently in the reports of the UN's climate change panel, the IPCC. The actors here shaped the UN reports, and ultimately - because no politician dare contradict the 'science' - shaped global policy. The allegations over the past week are fourfold: that climate scientists controlled the publishing process to discredit opposing views and further their own theory; they manipulated data to make recent temperature trends look anomalous; they withheld and destroyed data they should have released as good scientific practice, and they were generally beastly about people who criticised their work. (You’ll note that one of these is far less serious than the others.) But why should this be a surprise? The secretive Jones is no secret The secretive approach of CRU director Jones and his colleagues, particularly in the paleoclimatology field, is not a secret. Distinguished scientists have testified to this throughout from the early 1990s onwards. A report specifically commissioned four years ago by Congress, the Wegman Report, identified many of the failings discussed in the past week. Failings are understandable, climatology is in its infancy, and the man-made greenhouse gas theory is a recent development. However no action was taken. A little like Goldman Sachs, the group that includes the CRU Crew was deemed to be too important to fail - or even have the semblance of fallibility. A lightning recap of what CRU is, and what role it plays, helps bring the puzzle out of the shadows. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CRU was founded in 1972 by the 'Father of Climatology', former Met Office meteorologist Hubert Lamb. Until around 1980, solar modulation was believed to be the driving factor in climatic variation. A not unreasonable idea, you might think, since our energy (unless you live by a volcano vent) is derived from the sun. Without a better understanding of the sun, climatology may be reasonably be called "speculative meteorology". But CRU's increasing influence, according to its own history (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/), stemmed from politicians taking an interest. "The UK Government became a strong supporter of climate research in the mid-1980s, following a meeting between Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher and a small number of climate researchers, which included Tom Wigley, the CRU director at the time. This and other meetings eventually led to the setting up of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, within the Met Office," the CRU notes. Lamb (who died in 1997), however remained sceptical of the greenhouse gas hypothesis to the end. In addition to inheriting all the problems of climatology, the greenhouse gas hypothesis has several unique issues of its own, and addressing them is a challenge for the most scrupulous researcher. How CRU addressed them was to define climatology for two decades - and ultimately defined the public debate and policy, too. The gas theory is based on an elegant 'energy budget' model, but it leans heavily on positive feedbacks resulting from greenhouse gases such as CO2 in order to produce the warming CO2 cannot do by itself. Yet no simple empirical laboratory tests are of use here. Nor is there a ‘fingerprint’ or tell-tale signal that anthropogenically produced gases are the primary forcing factor. Hence climatology's increasing reliance, since 1980, on a range of anecdotal evidence and computer modelling. In a fiercely contested field, both methods were fiercely guarded. The result of this was the blurring of the line between correlation and causation, and hindcasting and forecasting. Slowly, but surely, an "assertion" was becoming "proof". The first IPCC report in 1990 used the established temperature record created by Lamb. It's very different to the one we're familiar with today - and that's the work of CRU director Phil Jones, CRU's pioneer dendrochronologist Keith Briffa, and their colleagues in (mainly) US institutions. You can see the difference here. Lamb's temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990 Without the error bars (grey), the Medieval Warm Period disappears Source: IPCC TAR 2001 Although Lamb's version is supported by historical accounts, archaeology, geology and even contemporary literature, two key differences are the decreased significance of the Medieval Warming Period (CRU and its allies prefer the term 'MCA', or "Medieval Climate Anomaly") and a radically warmer modern period. Jones and his team began to produce work that contradicted the established picture in 1990 - and CRU was able to do so from both ends. By creating new temperature recreations, it could create a new account of history. By issuing a monthly gridded temperature set while making raw station data unavailable for inspection, it defined contemporary data. So CRU controlled two important narratives: the "then", and the "now". In the FOIA.ZIP archive, we find Jones unambiguous in an email: "We will be rewriting people's perceived wisdom about the course of temperature change over the past millennium," he wrote. In text books co-authored with Ray Bradley (1992 and 1996) and a landmark paper with Ben Santer (1996), Jones described artificial reconstructions that questioned the established historical record. Jones and Briffa were both co-authors of a 1995 paper (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v376/n6536/abs/376156a0.html) for Nature - Unusual Twentieth-century Summer Warmth in a 1,000-year Temperature Record from Siberia - that used a tree ring reconstruction from the Urals to claim that the mean 20th Century temperature is higher than any period since 914. Sympathetic researchers in the US produced similar graphs, again emphasising that modern warming (0.7C in the 20th Century), was anomalous. Since these scientists declined to document their methodology and the raw sample, they were difficult to dispute. By 2001, with the IPCC's Third Assessment Report or TAR, the new version of history was the established one. The 'Hockey Stick' controversy only broke three years subsequently. "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." - Phil Jones That resulted in the Wegman report. Although CRU hadn't produced the Hockey Stick (the work of American metereologist Michael Mann) or used his statistical techniques, Wegman implicated leading CRU figures as part of a close knit network. In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. Wegman also criticised their workmanship: [...]the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Wegman had identified other networks in climate science which also "peer reviewed" each other's work, removing criticism from the record, and acting as gatekeepers. Over four years later the 'Climategate' archive provides evidence to support this. We find Jones discussing how to avoid FOIA requests, advising the deletion of email and telling his own information officers not to release data to critics. Earlier this summer, CRU said that it had failed to maintain the raw station data it had gathered, citing lack of storage space. But to what purpose were these networks acting?"

12/3/2009 11:35:28 AM

continued...

Quote :

"Playing politics - or feeding a demand? 'Climategate' raises far more questions than it answers, and one of the most intriguing of these is how a small group (backing a new theory, in an infant field) came to have such a huge effect on global policy making. Is it fair to hang CRU Director Jones and his colleagues out to dry - as some climate campaigners such as George Monbiot have suggested? If the buck doesn't stop with the CRU climatologists - then who or what is really to blame? Poring over the archive, it's easy to find a nose here, and a large leathery foot over there - and to conclude that the owner of the room may have a very strange taste in furnishings. The elephant in the room can go unnoticed. “We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!” - source code comment for the HADCRUT temperature set The CRU team may have stepped into a scientific vacuum, but that doesn't account for the qualities of the climate debate today. It is beset with a sense of crisis and urgency, and the ascendancy of a quite specific and narrow set of policy options that precludes the cool and rational assessment of the problem that an engineer might employ. Or equally, the cost/benefit calculations that an economist might use. (Actually, many have, and here's a good recent example (http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4245) from Richard Tol - but this is not part of the public discourse, or diplomatic agenda as illustrated by the Copenhagen Conference, where the focus is on emissions reductions). Briffa himself apparently found being "true" to his science and his customer difficult. "I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which are not always the same," he writes, after wrapping up the chapter on which he was joint lead author for the fourth IPCC report published. in 2007 The ignorance of the natural world displayed by the scientists is remarkably at odds with the notion that the science is "settled". Where's the Global Warming, asks NCAR's Tom Wigley. His colleague Kevin Trenberth admits they can't answer the question. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate." Trenberth goes on further, and admits the the energy budget hasn't been "balanced". Wigley paraphrases him: "we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going". It is climate experts admitting that they don't know what they're doing. But were such reservations communicated to the policy makers or media? As I mentioned earlier, the very nature of the problem itself has led the "science" onto shaky ground - onto modelling (which has no predictive value) and anecdotal evidence (which merely demonstrates correlation, but not causation). That's why the 'Hockey Stick' was a very big deal: it substituted for hard evidence; if fossil fuel emissions affected the climate at all significantly, this remained a future threat, and certainly not an urgent one. The demand from institutions, (principally the UN, through its IPCC), national policy makers and the media has taken climate scientists into areas where they struggle to do good science. Add professional activists to the mix - who bring with them the Precautionary Principle - and the element of urgency is introduced. The situation is largely self-inflicted. The scandal is that science has advanced through anecdote and poorly founded conjecture - and on this slender basis, politicians and institutions lacking vision and confidence (and given the lack of popular support, legitimacy too) have found a cause. Perhaps some readers may find this too forgiving of the participants. Three years ago Jones confessed to climatologist Christy both the state of the "science", and some of his own motivations. "As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/print.html

I mean the Congressional report, the Wegman report, basically spells out that the "independent" nature of a lot of the studies is highly suspicious

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : k]

12/3/2009 11:36:02 AM

Optimum, you are liek some fat dumb bitch boy.

And you are getting your ass smoked with all the data coming out against you right now. You are just fighting like a religious zealot at this point. Have fun defending the egregious acts of your fellow 'scientists'

12/3/2009 1:21:18 PM

sigh

12/3/2009 2:03:56 PM

Quote :

"The focus of much of the outrage that followed the public release of the private e-mails has been on the HadCRUT temperature figures generated in part by the CRU. Unfortunately, many of those commenting on matters apparently don't understand what's involved with HadCRUT, so it may be informative to discuss how those temperature figures are produced. ... The CRU obtains some of the data directly from public sources; according to the CRU, 95 percent of it can be accessed from the Global Historical Climatology Network. ... And, as the CRU points out, it's one of several organizations providing global instrument temperature values; even if you decide to ignore its work, NASA and NOAA produce figures that, statistically speaking, are indistinguishable. Finally, the instrument record itself, as others have eloquently detailed, is just one piece of a large body of evidence about climate change. "

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/climate-docs-lead-to-investigations-at-cru-penn-state.ars

12/3/2009 5:37:06 PM

Quote :

"Optimum, you are liek some fat dumb bitch boy. And you are getting your ass smoked with all the data coming out against you right now. You are just fighting like a religious zealot at this point. Have fun defending the egregious acts of your fellow 'scientists'"

Okay, this is exactly why you're not well liked here. I am not posting in favor of scientists, nor am I posting in favor of climate deniers. What I said is that I dislike how people like you immediately take it as a partisan issue and run with it for cheap political grandstanding. You have made no effort to read what I posted earlier, nor have you made any effort to figure out that I'm only calling you out for being a partisan choad.

If you want to keep playing this "wah wah democrats are the devil" card, you're going to find very quickly that you'll be ignored and unwelcome by people that actually want to have an intelligent discussion.

Sit down and shut the fuck up, as hooksaw would say.

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 5:43 PM. Reason : .]

12/3/2009 5:42:30 PM

pack_bryan (and HOOPS MALONE for that matter) are blatant trolls... i don't know why anyone seriously responds to them.

12/3/2009 5:44:29 PM

Probably true. I expect his next reply to me will be something along the lines of "you faggot hippie liberal" or some shit. He's not here to actually contribute.

12/3/2009 5:46:35 PM

Quote :

"Almost analagous but not quite... I know in your black and white mind these subtleties can be challenging."

no. effectively the same. as in, NOT created in the 20th century. You have a serious case of cranial-rectal inversion.

That was a damned good post, TKE-Teg. It's interesting to note just how the science shifted from sound to lunacy.

12/3/2009 6:32:50 PM

"...as we know it..." as opposed to as it was known during the time of spontaneous generation. There's that subtle difference.

They did not follow the complete hypothetico-deductive model. They did not understand the concept of falsification. They did not understand a hell of a lot of other things about the world that we do now.

You can continue to deny it's importance, but a consensus today means a lot more than it did then. Some of the most prestigious scientific bodies responsible for major scientific advancements are part of the consensus of global warming. This consensus has and will continue to influence the public and motivate politicians to make global policy changes.

12/3/2009 7:25:09 PM

Quote :

""...as we know it..." as opposed to as it was known during the time of spontaneous generation. There's that subtle difference."

Only, they weren't all that different to begin with. As in, what little difference you are clinging to is NEGLIGIBLE. as in, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT. give it up, dude. you talked out your ass.

Quote :

"You can continue to deny it's importance, but a consensus today means a lot more than it did then."

NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Please, show me ONE PLACE in the scientific method where it talks about consensus. ONE. That's all you gotta do. Besides, you STILL haven't commented on how the consensus is FAKE to begin with.

12/3/2009 7:28:31 PM

NO, YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!!! RAWR!!! ANAL REFERENCE!!!

12/3/2009 10:21:14 PM

you make my dick SO hard. keep it up. I'm almost there.

btw, I like how you have now given up on all of the things I've owned you on. It's hilarious

[Edited on December 3, 2009 at 10:27 PM. Reason : ]

12/3/2009 10:27:23 PM

12/3/2009 11:00:10 PM

this feels vaguely familiar.

12/3/2009 11:01:50 PM

Cities, states, countries scramble to adapt to rising seas and higher temperatures; expected to be big topic at U.N.:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091204/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_adapting

12/3/2009 11:27:19 PM

haha... I really wish I could fast forward to 150 years from now when people talk about how stupid we were to fall for the global warming scam.

I bet WSJ will be writing op-eds comparing whatever hairbrained liberal idea is in vogue to the global warming era of olde, and liberals will cry bloody murder saying, "its totally different this time."

12/3/2009 11:32:56 PM