RE: Climategate

RE: Climategate (Full Version)

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

Message

luckydawg -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 10:05:29 AM)
"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. " The op of your other thread... "How many conservatives felt their blood boiling at the idea that Michael Moore might use this tragedy as a platform for his own agenda but believe that Ms. Palin's addition of this venue to her tour is a show of care and patriotism" What position is it thast you are assigning to me me Spinner? I was not aware that I had given one on this topic yet. Not that would matter to you.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 10:13:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg "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. " The op of your other thread... "How many conservatives felt their blood boiling at the idea that Michael Moore might use this tragedy as a platform for his own agenda but believe that Ms. Palin's addition of this venue to her tour is a show of care and patriotism" What position is it thast you are assigning to me me Spinner? I was not aware that I had given one on this topic yet. Not that would matter to you. Dawg. your habit of saying things and then backpeadeling as well as putting words into people's mouths and then accusing them of doing so is getting old. I never said this should be ignored in any way. I said that there are a lot more questions than answers at this point and it should be treated that way. You didn't like that so you put out an insulting posting putting those words into my mouth and hoping people wouldn't see it for the lie it was. As for Palin's tour stop, all we have is her publicist telling us that it was planned in advance. I have said several times that I do not deny this to be true. I have said, just as in this case, that it poses questions I want to answer. Kindly try to keep to some standard of reality and consistency. Or better yet, don't bother. It's too much to ask of you.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 10:41:00 AM)
Yeah, I read this in Yahoo News. The problem is that most if not all of those scientists are getting some form of government assistance or money for these studies. If they are trumping up their studies and taking the money, that's called "fraud!" After being in a university/college setting for most of their lives they probably wouldn't adjust too well to a federal prison setting. (No you may NOT have a "microscope!")

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 10:47:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Yeah, I read this in Yahoo News. The problem is that most if not all of those scientists are getting some form of government assistance or money for these studies. If they are trumping up their studies and taking the money, that's called "fraud!" After being in a university/college setting for most of their lives they probably wouldn't adjust too well to a federal prison setting. (No you may NOT have a "microscope!") Let us not forget that most of the scientists speaking against global warming are being paid by companies who have some financial stake in the matter on the "non global warming" side. It is very much like the studies payed for by the tobacco companies that showed that cigarettes were not addictive nor did the cause cancer. The problem with "pure science" is that it has to be paid for by someone. And, like artists, scientists end up catering to one degree or another, to their patrons.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 11:00:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales Dawg. your habit of saying things and then backpeadeling as well as putting words into people's mouths and then accusing them of doing so is getting old. As is your habit of asking questions, apparently just in the hope of getting an answer you can snark at, then completely ignoring the response. Would you be more comfortable just assigning people positions you feel competent to challenge?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 11:32:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic As is your habit of asking questions, apparently just in the hope of getting an answer you can snark at, then completely ignoring the response. Would you be more comfortable just assigning people positions you feel competent to challenge? My questions on this matter are the same as they have been since I first read the story. Has data been manipulated? What data has been manipulated? What is this "trick" that has garnered so much attention. It is indeed a "trick" as in a fraud to try to support a bad conclusion? Or is it a trick as in "I used your trick of doubling the sales tax to figure the tip and it worked"? Right now I don't have the answers to that. Neither does anyone. However it seems some want to close the case before these questions are even examined. I would feel much more comfortable if some agenda driven posters would at least speak of finding these answers rather than demanding that people act as if asking them in the first place is foolishness.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 11:40:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Yeah, I read this in Yahoo News. The problem is that most if not all of those scientists are getting some form of government assistance or money for these studies. If they are trumping up their studies and taking the money, that's called "fraud!" After being in a university/college setting for most of their lives they probably wouldn't adjust too well to a federal prison setting. (No you may NOT have a "microscope!") Let us not forget that most of the scientists speaking against global warming are being paid by companies who have some financial stake in the matter on the "non global warming" side. It is very much like the studies payed for by the tobacco companies that showed that cigarettes were not addictive nor did the cause cancer. The problem with "pure science" is that it has to be paid for by someone. And, like artists, scientists end up catering to one degree or another, to their patrons. Spinner, that's true but when they're taking Taxdollars that makes them vulnerable! Some young Asst. D.A. who wants to make a name for themselves can come along and...

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 11:42:39 AM)
How do you keep those dancing shoes so shiny, Spinner?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:14:21 PM)
quote: How do you keep those dancing shoes so shiny, Spinner? ORIGINAL: TheHeretic By refusing to step in your bullshit, Heretic [:)]

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:18:15 PM)
quote: Spinner, that's true but when they're taking Taxdollars that makes them vulnerable! Some young Asst. D.A. who wants to make a name for themselves can come along and... ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I agree, Popeye. If fraud was involved, then steps have to be taken. If it wasn't fraud but bad science, then it needs to be corrected. If it was communications being taken out of context, then it has to be demonstrated. Whatever the situation, this case needs a thorough examination in a manner that is more interested in finding the truth than advancing agendas. Until there are some serious answers, backed by a serious and thorough investigations, I'm viewing the entire matter with a great sense of suspicion and a strong desire to get the whole thing into the sunlight, no matter where the chips may fall.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:29:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: How do you keep those dancing shoes so shiny, Spinner? ORIGINAL: TheHeretic By refusing to step in your bullshit, Heretic [:)] [sm=rofl.gif] Good answer! It's another clever step away from the subject of course, but, LOL!

luckydawg -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:36:44 PM)
What else would you get from Spinner?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 12:44:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: How do you keep those dancing shoes so shiny, Spinner? ORIGINAL: TheHeretic By refusing to step in your bullshit, Heretic [:)] [sm=rofl.gif] Good answer! It's another clever step away from the subject of course, but, LOL! You mean the subject you so carefully stuck to in your question, Heretic? Perhaps you can tell me how the condition of my shoes impacts on the discussion of these emails. Now if you want to stick with the subject, I will ask you a question directly on the subject. Do you or do you not feel that a thorough investigation of these emails, these scientists, the data and the methods used to analyze that data is needed before we know the truth of the situation?

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 3:03:05 PM)
What is it called, Spinner, when a question is asked that has nothing to do with any of my comments here? And why should you deserve an indulgent response with the history of pretending you don't see answers that are supplied? I'm eagerly looking forward to such an investigation of what these files reveal. I hope the AP is able to separate some of their fact-checking team from the Sarah Palin crisis and bring us some good information on it, themselves. As that unfolds though, I also appeciate dancing and squirming, and expect to see a fair bit of it from the self-annointed high priests of "humans baa-aaad."

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 3:46:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic What is it called, Spinner, when a question is asked that has nothing to do with any of my comments here? And why should you deserve an indulgent response with the history of pretending you don't see answers that are supplied? I'm eagerly looking forward to such an investigation of what these files reveal. I hope the AP is able to separate some of their fact-checking team from the Sarah Palin crisis and bring us some good information on it, themselves. As that unfolds though, I also appeciate dancing and squirming, and expect to see a fair bit of it from the self-annointed high priests of "humans baa-aaad." So we agree. Right now there is a suspicious looking circumstance that has to be investigated. Which is what I said at the start. Until it is investigated, the rest is supposition. And I'm sure there will be dancing and squirming on both sides. For every bit of dancing and squirming the believers in global warming will do, there will be an equal amount of dancing and squriming (with pure joy) on the part of those who feel that making someone or something look bad makes them look better. I also don't think AP or Fox News or such are the ones to conduct such investigations, at least not alone. I would like some impartial organization that actually understood science to do so. But, again, it's hard to think of anyone who doesn't have a dog in this race. Any ideas?

DomKen -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 4:02:13 PM)
Well not to inject any reality into the celebrating but I just read all the emails and most of teh other documents released and didn't find anything that indicated that data had been misrepresented or any claims made at variance with teh data. The absolute worst thing was the researcher who admited using a mathematical trick empasize the results he considered more important. I'm sure all the deniers will claim otherwise so I offer a simple challenge present the email or document you think is the smoking gun proving AGW is not happening. No blog posts or others claims. just the document and why it is the proof in your own words.

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 4:03:47 PM)
Wouldn't that require somebody to have a basic grasp of climatology, though? Tall order.

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 4:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I offer a simple challenge present the email or document you think is the smoking gun proving AGW is not happening. That isn't the question, nor the standard, Ken. Don't try to distract from this being about a leading scientific institution apparently conspiring to conceal evidence and suppress discussion. I call "bullshit" upon your "simple challenge."

TheHeretic -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 5:03:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I just read all the emails and most of teh other documents released and didn't find anything that indicated that data had been misrepresented or any claims made at variance with teh data. The absolute worst thing was the researcher who admited using a mathematical trick empasize the results he considered more important. What were your thoughts on the emails cited here ? Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again "Can you delete any emails you may have had with ***** re AR4? &&&&& will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email $$$$$ and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting %%%%% to do likewise." (What might they have been discussing in those emails about AR4?) I'm sure you gave all 61 megs a throrough examination, Ken, with all your personal investment of blind faith in human caused climate shift set aside, but I'll wait to see what comes out, and who turns out to be who in a wider variety of reports.

DomKen -> RE: Climategate (11/22/2009 10:35:59 PM)
Maybe you misread this quote: No blog posts or others claims. You find the email and you quote more than a 1 paragraph blurb and tell me how it disproves AGW.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125