RE: Climategate

RE: Climategate (Full Version)

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

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 10:21:14 AM)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=003LKN94 here we go. The emails that are hacked. zip file.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 10:49:20 AM)
Peer Review... Peer review kept Piltdown Man alive and shouted down skeptics for more than 40 years. One of these days people will accecpt that peer review is not the be all end all. We have lost almost 20 years to trying to fix blame and stop "Global Warming" Hopefully we can soon start the work on doing what humans do way better than stopping and blaming and that is to use our brains to adapt.

Sanity -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 11:40:51 AM)
Could this be the tipping point? A watershed moment? [;)] Thomas quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY\ ...“This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” ...

FirmhandKY -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 1:14:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It is frivolous to claim you don't understand scarcasm, Firm, when it drips. I was aware it was sarcasm, Ron. That's why I had the smiley face. I just chose to answer his words on their face meaning, not in their sarcastic meaning. Firm

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 1:35:12 PM)
The story has made it to the AP feed. Those AWFUL hackers did a very bad thing! Hackers leak emails, stoke climate debate Spin, baby, spin!

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 1:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The story has made it to the AP feed. Those AWFUL hackers did a very bad thing! Hackers leak emails, stoke climate debate Spin, baby, spin! The first time I became aware of those who want to hold information vs. those who want to leak it was back when Daniel Ellburg leaked the Pentagon Papers about Viet Nam. It is no surprise that the people who were hacked would condemn the hacking. The investigation of this, however, is made complicated by the fact that emails are notoriously easy to edit once they have been downloaded. I would think that any investigation would have to go both ways. We not only have to investigate the material to see if the scientists were fudging data and whether what was presented by the hackers was accurate and unedited. So far some serious questions have been raised. Answers, at that point, seem in short supply.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 1:55:08 PM)
Spinner... I doubt these were actually hacked, its more likely someone (or some people) got tired with living with the lie and set up the leak to look like a hacking. At either... its not a good day for "peer reviews" or the pundits and useful idiots who use phrases like "scientific consensus"

rulemylife -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 1:57:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Firm, that's the New York Times. You can't believe anything you read in that liberal propaganda rag. At least that's what I keep hearing. That's just the first story I quoted, rule. The second is from the UK's Telegraph, the third from a "weird news" site, and the final was a link to the Google search of the term "Climategate" which shows over 9k references. The point is that this is indeed a major story, and I wanted to remove the possibility of a claim of all biased sources. Guess I didn't succeed, huh? [:D] Firm No, I was just making a joke.

Sanity -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 2:01:45 PM)
The photo AP chose to accompany the article about what was described in the initial paragraph as a "well-respected climate change research center" [image]local://upfiles/292349/5AB91584784F4976B16F726339378633.jpg[/image]

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 3:36:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Spinner... I doubt these were actually hacked, its more likely someone (or some people) got tired with living with the lie and set up the leak to look like a hacking. At either... its not a good day for "peer reviews" or the pundits and useful idiots who use phrases like "scientific consensus" It seems you're taking a "why investigate?" point of view FDD. As in "This particular story, if taken as is, supports my own point of view so let's not bother to find out the facts." Now personally, I would have to re-examine some of what I was thought known abut global warming if this does mean that data was fudged or otherwise manipulated. Unfortunately, it seems some are more interested in agenda than truth and are already proposing theories as to "why this is the absolute truth of malfeasance and completely discredits the opinion I don't want to take." I would have hoped for better.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 5:58:06 PM)
We have to be patient with them, Sanity. All their fact checkers are following Sarah Palin around right now. I'm sure they'll be all over those leaked emails, and busily interviewing the scientists whose careers may have been wrecked by conspiracy and collusion... I wonder if Al Gore was cc'd on any of these?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 6:02:43 PM)
quote: We have to be patient with them, Sanity. All their fact checkers are following Sarah Palin around right now. I'm sure they'll be all over those leaked emails, and busily interviewing the scientists whose careers may have been wrecked by conspiracy and collusion... I wonder if Al Gore was cc'd on any of these? ORIGINAL: TheHeretic So I was correct. Because this story fits the view you want to have on the world, you don't need any facts, investigations or follow up. In fact, all you need to do is once again make sure that it becomes a "shot at the other side" and keep the game going. And people wonder why the country has become polarized to the extent it has.

pahunkboy -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 8:12:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Spinner... I doubt these were actually hacked, its more likely someone (or some people) got tired with living with the lie and set up the leak to look like a hacking. At either... its not a good day for "peer reviews" or the pundits and useful idiots who use phrases like "scientific consensus" I doubt it. I looked thru many of the emails and PDFs, words- and notes in the batch. It is interesting to sift thru.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 8:27:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The story has made it to the AP feed. Those AWFUL hackers did a very bad thing! Hackers leak emails, stoke climate debate That's an extremely... uh... creative interpretation of what reads like a remarkably neutral and balanced news article. If you feel it's not, perhaps this would be a good item for you to bring to Tim's thread about liberal bias, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Spin, baby, spin! Hey, you said it, not me.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 9:42:56 PM)
Are you familiar with "inverted pyramid" journalism style, Panda? The most important information comes first. Very often, it's the clearest, easiest reflection of what the reporter believes about what is important in the story. The AP article I linked chose the angle I described to lead with. As for that bias thread, maybe we'll finally get a definition of terms by page 16, you think?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 9:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Are you familiar with "inverted pyramid" journalism style, Panda? The most important information comes first. Very often, it's the clearest, easiest reflection of what the reporter believes about what is important in the story. The AP article I linked chose the angle I described to lead with. As for that bias thread, maybe we'll finally get a definition of terms by page 16, you think? And what do you think is the "important point" of this story? So far, all that's been proven is that there are some emails that have been made public that may or may not shown some degree of poor science on the matter of global warming by one of many organizations studying it? Nothing else has been proven or made apparent. I am sure that there are many bloggers and such who have headlines such as "Global Warming Prove Fraud" or "Heros Out the Lie of Global Warming" but, as it stands now, that isn't the case. I do understand your frustration, however, with a news organization that prints the news as opposed to the opinion and guesswork that would vindicate your personal opinions.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/21/2009 10:34:38 PM)
Compare them to the Times coverage from Firm's OP (the first link). Do you see how much more quickly the Times got to the point? Notice that they used the word "conspired" in the lead, to convey the seriousness of the allegations? What's the second paragraph? AP thinks you need to know that the police are investigating. Why yes, I am using the New York Times as the example of the better written, and straighter story.

luckydawg -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:05:56 AM)
Spinner, it is wierd that you think nothing has been shown yet, when the AP atricle has Jones admiting it is real. and 2 more of the outed "researchers" refuse to comment. But I guess that is why they call you spinner..... "Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine." Intersting that you feel this must be ignored untill fully researched, and to do otherwise is tearing the country apart, blah blah. While you go off about Palins book tour with out doing the aproiate research. No need to really find out if that stop had already been planned, Just run with it in a partisan way.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 8:00:24 AM)
quote: So I was correct. Because this story fits the view you want to have on the world, you don't need any facts You've just defined the global warming religion. Actually this is above that standard. Scientific results weren't manipulated and 'fudged' in this story as they were for the aggrandizement of the religion's messiah Al Gore and his 'green' apostle companies. It's more like an insider at BALCO disclosing the fraudulent accounting. After all the dust settles I'm sure the rationalization will move on to the next step; the "good intent" defense. The collateral damage; the closed businesses, lost jobs, increasing costs of goods don't matter, because after all, "good intent" was the motivation. Unlike BALCO, following the money, won't be important. It really was so simple, all the modeling all the theories couldn't hold up and didn't work in any scientific proof of observable climate history. Global fluctuations of climate, CO2, and other greenhouse gases have been normal both in pre, and recorded history. However any challenge to the religion was considered heresy and any agnostic working in the weather/climate industry or education system learned early on, belief was a condition of their livelihood. It comes down to people needing a religion, something to believe. For many god is dead. Observable behavior, too many unanswered prayers, and perhaps a simply maturity of the species has made god obsolete for many. If we are lucky the same will happen with this god and it will be behind us. Maybe people will realize how they have been manipulated, start thinking, and stop following.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 8:32:27 AM)
quote: Intersting that you feel this must be ignored untill fully researched, and to do otherwise is tearing the country apart, blah blah. While you go off about Palins book tour with out doing the aproiate research. No need to really find out if that stop had already been planned, Just run with it in a partisan way. ORIGINAL: luckydawg Wow...how awful of me to think that this story requires an entire re-examination of the data and procedures that the effects of greenhouse gasses are having on global climate. I should just accept that a couple of emails quoted out of context answers all the questions and supports your position. After all, why investigate anything. If it supports your viewpoint, it has to be true. As for Palin, I've already pointed out that, so far, we only have her publicist's word that it was "pre-planned". I am not saying it was not, but I am saying that the fact that it was never announced does raise some questions to be answered. I would like to know how many other unannounced stops she's making. I'd like to know when she made these plans. I'd like to know if she indeed had it set up or if this is just a Palin spin. It seems that asking questions and wanting to know the truth before making a decision is partisan in your view. But that's really no surprise, is it?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875