1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Nov 21, 2009.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I can hear the hand wringging from the Global Warmists and it smells like... victory.

    Sure, they won't surrender and go quietly in to the night but "it's dead, Jim" at least that GW is man-made.
    There's much more at this piece, so say good night to that theory, at least the root of it.

    Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs
  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I disagree. This one is propagating nicely. Too juicy.
  4. Frodo Lives

    Frodo Lives to hit it!

    I fear that most who bought into "ManBearPig" (Thank you South Park and Leon :) ) will continue to support it because to do otherwise would show how easily they where fooled, and that is a big blow to anyone ego. As humans, we have a natural need to believe we are right, to go against is to go against that can, at times, take Herculean efforts.
  5. tke711

    tke711 Oink Oink Staff Member

    So far, I fear you may be right Biker. I've watched the local and network news since Leon posted this and I've seen nothing. Maybe they'll catch up to it when Monday rolls around.
  6. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    I've seen some of the major papers pick it up, and depending on the political "bend", the story being reported varies widely. A lot of what I'm seeing gives a lot of leeway to the researchers and the "excuses" being given. I've yet to see a single one question the data being purported as "truth". **sigh**
  7. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    The NYT has run a story on this, and the tone seems pretty neutral.

    I think this shows that scientists can be subject to trends and fads, like the Wall Street financiers who fell for the sub-prime mortgage fad, or their predecessors who fell for the dot-com one.
  8. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  9. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Fox will run it. As soon as Hannity and company have the chance to really sink their teeth into the data and verify it. You can be assured they're on it now. But they're not going to run it as fact without knowing everything that's going on.
  10. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    And the rhetoric intensifies..

    Climate change quickens, seas feared up 2 meters | Green Business | Reuters

    I suspect this is going to drown out any meaningful dialogue regarding the questionable methods employed by those whose emails were hacked. In short, we're right back where we started. :chickenlittle:
  11. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    While this news may be good, there is a very worrying concern on the horizon.

  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Reposting from Google wave:

    Looks like this whole GW conspiracy is blowing the doors open. Tom Flannery, not only a paleontologist but a huge activist for GW theory states the following on the Australian Lateline program:

    We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate...We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagreeyou’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend.

    No, really? In other words, the science isn't exactly, um, settled? It actually is pointing in, well, precisely the opposite direction from what we've been saying all along? Which, of course, is what skeptics --including myself and others on this forum -- have been pointing out from the start.

    More here. I doubt the above would have been possible if NOT for the hacked computers that reveal soooo much.
  13. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I don't recall seeing this 2007 ruling when it was made. Wonder if the media hushed it up? Regardless, there is now a counter-documentary being released that shows what's wrong with Al Gore's much fawned-over "Inconvenient Truth."

    New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming - FOXNews.com

    I know it's Fox news. Nobody else reporting on it.

    But in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" views.

    The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the film is "substantially founded up scientific research and fact" but that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."

    BTW, the article also describes how the film makers were hushed in a Gore appearance when they tried to ask him about some of his inaccuracies, and whether he'd recant.
  14. Techie2000

    Techie2000 The crowd would sing:

    The problem with both sides (those supporting the theory and those saying it can't be possible) is that they expect the right answer to emanate from a lab beaker in some kind of care-bear rainbow but that is not how science works. Certainly this incident looks poor for these scientists, but one might note that if we employ the same level of damnation, we might consider offing capitalism but for the evils of some CEOs. In other words, don't toss out the baby with the bathwater.
  15. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    With ground THAT wet it's not surprising the report leaked. :whistle:
  16. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    1. No one is expecting an answer from A lab. What people expect in science, at the very least, is integrity. Which is sorely missing from the GW scientists and this is being exposed here.

    2. Your statement on "how science works" is an irony of all irony in lieu of the topic here.

    "Yea but" is the motto of an ideologue when faced with hard facts.

    Hardly surprised by your stance.
  17. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Here's some real insight, some real information, something rational on the subject of these stolen emails, at last.

    Do read the whole thing and the included links.

    The whole incident is interesting and revealing. But it doesn't change for one minute the scientific consensus about the fact of anthropogenic climate change.
  18. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    A blogger opinion piece, nothing more insightful than any other blogger, and nothing presented that hasn't been said before by others whenever presented by counter-evidence of GW. He's basically refusing to consider that he may have been fed bad information all this time - the hallmark of sheeple mentality. One of the responses nails it - "Evidence of vast conspiracy is sorely lacking. But evidence of a small conspiracy certainly exists." When scientists are resorting to conspiracies at all in order to reach their desired results then it's not science. And these guys who were hacked were a major player in the GW "science". Their climate models are garbage, IMO. Take the mulligan. Start over.
  19. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Cue Arc's refrain!

    You missed the point, Copz. The small conspiracy has nothing to do with reaching the results. Never has, never will. When you say "scientists resorting to conspiracies to reach their desired results" you are describing something that is not even hinted at in these emails, and which did not happen.

    The consensus about anthropogenic climate change has been reached only through real data and scientific analysis. The conspiracy (which is still inexcusable) only had to do with avoiding unreasonable, illogical attacks from politically-motivated loud voices from non-scientists, non-experts, the uninformed.

    The emails reveal the lengths to which these scientists are being pushed to get the signal through the noise. That's revealing about the nature and volume of the noise, yes. And that's a good thing to have revealed, and a very bad thing to be happening.
  20. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    What I've read of the emails talks of massaging data to achieve the results desired, omitting some other results. Not just a discussion of how to counter the GW skeptics. Their own data not matching climate models, and so they do not publish it, Joe.

    THAT is a conspiracy, however small or widespread it may be.

Share This Page