RE: Climategate

RE: Climategate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 9:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here. You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine? So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Firm

Kirata -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 10:07:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Garbage in, garbage out. I posted this to another climate thread. It obviously applies here too: The Genetic Fallacy The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Appeal to Authority An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeal to Popularity Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. And just to save time, here are the counter arguments that one person posted: To the Genetic Fallacy: there is no shortage of evidence To the Appeal to Authority fallacy: this isn't a real logical fallacy To the Appeal to Popularity fallacy: also, not a real logical fallacy I mean, jeeez, where the fuck do go from there? Lordy, let's sing. All rise. K.

vincentML -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 10:52:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Garbage in, garbage out. I posted this to another climate thread. It obviously applies here too: The Genetic Fallacy The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Appeal to Authority An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeal to Popularity Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. And just to save time, here are the counter arguments that one person posted: To the Genetic Fallacy: there is no shortage of evidence To the Appeal to Authority fallacy: this isn't a real logical fallacy To the Appeal to Popularity fallacy: also, not a real logical fallacy I mean, jeeez, where the fuck do go from there? Lordy, let's sing. All rise. K. Let me add the compunding fallacy of the "information cascade" or "availability cascade" i.e. "a self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of certain kinds of collective belief." A little more detail here. Vincent

FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 1:54:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Garbage in, garbage out. I posted this to another climate thread. It obviously applies here too: The Genetic Fallacy The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit. Appeal to Authority An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true. Appeal to Popularity Appeals to popularity suggest that an idea must be true simply because it is widely held. And just to save time, here are the counter arguments that one person posted: To the Genetic Fallacy: there is no shortage of evidence To the Appeal to Authority fallacy: this isn't a real logical fallacy To the Appeal to Popularity fallacy: also, not a real logical fallacy I mean, jeeez, where the fuck do go from there? Lordy, let's sing. All rise. K. Thanks K. I think you have it pegged pretty well. It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts. Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head. However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence. It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard. My worry is ... are they thinking hard about the facts, or are they thinking hard about how they can overcome the facts? Firm

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 2:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts. Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head. However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence. It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard. My worry is ... are they thinking hard about the facts, or are they thinking hard about how they can overcome the facts? Firm Well, speaking for just myself, Firm, I am considering that there are a lot of questions to be answered and I want a lot more information than I have before I make up my mind on the issue. Therefore I am keeping quiet and l listening. Others, who shall remain nameless, have made up their minds long ago that AGW was a liberal plot to destroy capitalism as we know it see no need to ask questions, think or consider, so they can use their time to crow over their "marvelous victory". Just one man's opinion, of course.

vincentML -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 2:52:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Well, speaking for just myself, Firm, I am considering that there are a lot of questions to be answered and I want a lot more information than I have before I make up my mind on the issue. Therefore I am keeping quiet and l listening. Two places to begin, Spinner: Ask the AGW folks to explain away the preindustrial Medieval Warming Period that allowed Norsemen to establish settlements in Greenland. Not too many industrial pollutants during that time. Ask the AGW folks to explain away the graphs derived from the plotting of carbon dioxide density vs warming in ice core sampling (the same graphs presented in Al Gore's film) that show the warming occurring before the increase in atomospheric carbon dioxide not the other way round as stated. The science does not really seem to be "settled": "According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations" More info available here. Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it seems to be saying that measurements of the historical carbon dioxide increase from the Volstok Ice Core samples did not precede deglaciations and clearly lagged behind glaciation periods. This seems crucial science to me. It seems to show no clear cause and effect relationship between the carbon dioxide measurement and the climate change. I would welcome any clarification. Vincent

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 3:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here. You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine? So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Firm More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 3:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts. Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head. However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence. It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard. My worry is ... are they thinking hard about the facts, or are they thinking hard about how they can overcome the facts? Firm Well, speaking for just myself, Firm, I am considering that there are a lot of questions to be answered and I want a lot more information than I have before I make up my mind on the issue. Therefore I am keeping quiet and l listening. Others, who shall remain nameless, have made up their minds long ago that AGW was a liberal plot to destroy capitalism as we know it see no need to ask questions, think or consider, so they can use their time to crow over their "marvelous victory". Just one man's opinion, of course. vincent makes some good points. I guess, though, spinner, my question to you is pretty simple. If you believe that science should be the process to arrive at knowledge, and science is based on facts and data, and the free flow of facts and data, along with the process you used to make them meaningful so that others can replicate and test your conclusions ... how can you square either the refusal of many of the main AGW proponents to release their data, or the processes that they used to pull meaning out of that data? This, my friend, is the ultimate debasement of science. What do you call people who give conclusions, but refuse to release the raw data and processes they used to arrive at their conclusions? Not only that, who have been caught in deleting that data when forced to release it, and who have attempted to squeeze out anyone who dares question their "facts", their processes, or their conclusions? Regardless of whether or not the earth is growing warmer, and the reason why - even if it is due to CO2 and human activity ... the way that Phil Jones and his posse approached it, and tried to sell it IS NOT SCIENCE, and anything that they have to say, based on their "work" is contaminated. Firm

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 3:19:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here. You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine? So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Firm More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American. How would you feel if the fucking New York Times was the only paper anybody outside of your country ever read?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 3:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here. You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine? So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Firm More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American. How would you feel if the fucking New York Times was the only paper anybody outside of your country ever read? Or if the Mail was the only one we got!

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 3:45:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I find it very depressing that the bloody Telegraph is the only British paper anybody ever links to in here. You're aware that it's effectively the Conservative party's house magazine? So ... it's the source, and not the facts that you wish to argue with? Firm More that I'm pissed off that it seems that's the only newspaper in the UK if you're American. How would you feel if the fucking New York Times was the only paper anybody outside of your country ever read? Or if the Mail was the only one we got! Fair point. I was forgetting people had linked the Mail as well.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 4:24:58 PM)
quote: I guess, though, spinner, my question to you is pretty simple. If you believe that science should be the process to arrive at knowledge, and science is based on facts and data, and the free flow of facts and data, along with the process you used to make them meaningful so that others can replicate and test your conclusions ... how can you square either the refusal of many of the main AGW proponents to release their data, or the processes that they used to pull meaning out of that data? This, my friend, is the ultimate debasement of science. What do you call people who give conclusions, but refuse to release the raw data and processes they used to arrive at their conclusions? Not only that, who have been caught in deleting that data when forced to release it, and who have attempted to squeeze out anyone who dares question their "facts", their processes, or their conclusions? Regardless of whether or not the earth is growing warmer, and the reason why - even if it is due to CO2 and human activity ... the way that Phil Jones and his posse approached it, and tried to sell it IS NOT SCIENCE, and anything that they have to say, based on their "work" is contaminated. ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Valid questions, Firm... First, I do not square any of the nonsense that I see from either side as right. I am rather skeptical of both. Mostly I see a lot of people with a lot of interests and a lot of money paying for a bunch of scientists to say what they want to hear rather than the truth. I don't have much faith in the AGW proponents. I certainly don't have much faith in the AGW opponents who are being bankrolled by those who stand to make more money if AGW is discredited than they do if it's proven. But science doesn't require faith. That's why it's science. I am not in either camp on this one. Before this started, I felt that there were a lot of questions that weren't being answered to my satisfaction. This entire "climategate" thing, to my mind, has raised more questions, rather than providing any answers. I find this a damned shame. Not because I believe mankind would do anything about AGW if it was proved as surely as 2+2=4. That would require a level of care over something other than personal profit and I haven't seen much of that happening anywhere, even if you do go back to the middle ages. It's a shame because this should be a matter of science rather than politics. I see a lot of politics over this matter. I see very little in the way of better science.

vincentML -> RE: Climategate (12/7/2009 8:30:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales First, I do not square any of the nonsense that I see from either side as right. I am rather skeptical of both. Mostly I see a lot of people with a lot of interests and a lot of money paying for a bunch of scientists to say what they want to hear rather than the truth. I don't have much faith in the AGW proponents. I certainly don't have much faith in the AGW opponents who are being bankrolled by those who stand to make more money if AGW is discredited than they do if it's proven. But science doesn't require faith. That's why it's science. Here's a thought, Spinner. Science and Art have historically been supported by Patrons. A commission from the Pope did not lesson the beauty of Bellini's altar. In the current controversy it is difficult to conclude which interest stands to make more money. That's why the battle is so fierce. quote: I am not in either camp on this one. Before this started, I felt that there were a lot of questions that weren't being answered to my satisfaction. This entire "climategate" thing, to my mind, has raised more questions, rather than providing any answers. That's what Science and the free flow of information is supposed to do, Spinner. It is a method of inquiry, not of certitude. quote: I find this a damned shame. Not because I believe mankind would do anything about AGW if it was proved as surely as 2+2=4. That would require a level of care over something other than personal profit and I haven't seen much of that happening anywhere, even if you do go back to the middle ages. It's a shame because this should be a matter of science rather than politics. I see a lot of politics over this matter. I see very little in the way of better science. Oh, you accuse humans of being greedy and brutish in their competitive nature? Not at all cooperative with one another? Driven by selfishness rather than altruism? Hmmmm. I suspect you are right. It is not a pretty sight. However, sometimes competition guides truth down the right path, although like a drunken sailor (apologies, mates) Sometime it leads to a newly discovered and surprising truth. What is the alternative? A Czar for doing things right? That has always seemed to be a flawed system, don't you think?. Seems awfully easy to sit back and say "a pox on both your houses." No offense, Spinner, really. But, I think tis better to choose a side in a controversy of such magnitude than to sit on the sidelines. My opinion only. Vincent

Level -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 3:36:37 AM)
Don't know if this has been brought up; just saw on ABC a report, that Saudi Arabia is pretty much the only nation referring to the Climategate issue, saying it casts serious doubt on the science and meeting in Copenhagen. The US rep said it's a "blip", and will have zero effect.

vincentML -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 5:06:55 AM)
I meant to say in my last post the Pope's commission did not lessen or diminish the beauty of the Bernini altar. "lesson" was a mental hiccup caused by a double sambucca on the rocks with a splash of water. I have read somewhere that the OPEC nations are in Copenhagen with the agenda of seeking reparations for their future loss of oil revenues. I wonder if there is truth in the report. Vincent

Kirata -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 9:04:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML a mental hiccup caused by a double sambucca on the rocks with a splash of water. Well no wonder. Forego the water next time, it's a distraction. [:D] K.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 11:34:31 AM)
Well, they're talking about "hundreds of billions of dollars" going to third world countries from the West in Copenhagen!

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 11:49:57 AM)
Uh oh! - Another "leak"... The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations. The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals. The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" - but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark - has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalized this week. The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol - the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions. A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to: • Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement; • Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable"; • Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance; • Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes. Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations. "It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless. How unfair - asking those poor developing countries to meet the same standards! That's not what was promised by UN! Their air and water are different. They can't be expected to not generate carbon and still be able to fulfill the Nike sneaker orders under contracted costs! Hell - Nike may as well have a factory in Seattle!

rockspider -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 12:10:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML I meant to say in my last post the Pope's commission did not lessen or diminish the beauty of the Bernini altar. "lesson" was a mental hiccup caused by a double sambucca on the rocks with a splash of water. I have read somewhere that the OPEC nations are in Copenhagen with the agenda of seeking reparations for their future loss of oil revenues. I wonder if there is truth in the report. Vincent That is long time since they came out with that. But everybody else is in there with their own agenda. Usual political claptrap really. And everybody is blaming the others and demanding they must do something about it.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (12/8/2009 12:41:35 PM)
What's the differance between being able to buy "carbon credits" and buying "indulgences" in the middle ages? They both involve religions.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02