He's right.
Recently gary pointed out that I've been ignoring the recent stories about Climategate. I have to admit it. I have. However it's not because of the reasons he implies. I just didn't want to waste my time with arguing the FACT that the same government bureaucrats who benefit from and in some cases were actually involved in Climategate were the very same people who were doing the investigation.
Read it and weep...or make up some other excuse or....start the name calling or.....whatever else you're going to do..
21 comments:
Christopher Booker. One of the usual suspects, not a scientist, longtime GW skeptic, also holds contrarian views on "Darwinism", asbestos, and passive cigarette smoke. On the other side: 97% of the world's climatologists, according to the recent Stanford Study, which you ignore. The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is at this point incontrovertible.
gary..one of the usual suspects. not a scientist longtime sucker for the GW hustle. Also holds the retarded view that the Kennedy assasination was staged by the CIA and the Mafia working together with the rest of the grassy knoll tarts.
However, that doesn't change the fact that gary can't refute ANY of the FACTS that Booker mentions in his article.
How many documents were reviewed? Who supplied said documents? Who was on this review panel and what do they have to gain or lose by the outcome?
Kennedy was assasinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. The evidence has been examined by all of the experts and the consensus by 100% of these experts is that he acted alone. It is incontrovertible.
How many books on the Kennedy assassination have you read? Have you done any original research? Have you been credited in books by researchers, as I have?
Again, the "consensus" is now at 97% among climatologists, and the remaining 3% are lesser lights who rarely if ever publish in scientific jourals, as the recent study (which you continue to ignore) shows? I don't believe however that the study addresses how many of the 3% are on Exxon's payroll.
Thank you
I rest my case.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1
You really don't get it do you?
No one gives a shit what 1% let alone what 97% of scientists think. Scientific consensus has been exposed as a fraud. All major climate change legislation is dead. Let it go. It is over.
Seriously. I think the point has been made.
You attacked the messenger but not the message because you know you can't. You have no knowledge of what went on beyond the headline of "nothing to see here"
The truth is that the people who cleared the liars at East Anlia are the liars at East Anglia.
They submitted 11 documents to be reviewed....11! out of tens of thousands! and they submitted them to thier friends!
Even if you still believe in the myth of man made global warming you can at least be honest enough to admit that these guys lied and cheated.
You can argue the intentions. maybe you might say they did it because the ends justifies the means or whatever but the facts are there.
They're playing you and your ilk for fools and it's working.
Donkey: Science without scientists? Really, that's your argument now? Admitting that there is a 97% consensus among scientists, then just saying fuck it, I prefer to believe Rush Limbaugh?
Rhino: I knew ClimateGate was bullshit almost from the beginning because I read the worst of the emails and there was nothing there.
It was the "scientific community" that first leveled charges against Galileo for voicing dissent against the consensus of geocentrism.
Time and time again the scientific majority have been on the wrong side of the truth.
Just like in this case.
So yeah science not without the scientists, but science without the sheepish scientific majority.
Well, yes the consensus on geocentrism was wrong, although it was the Church that put Galileo on trial.Perhaps one day the minority of 3% against AGW will be vindicated, although I strongly doubt it. The fact that they do not publish or do research works against them. But how do you KNOW that the skeptics are right?
Perhaps Peter Duesberg will one day be vindicated in believing that HIV does not cause AIDS. Extremely unlikely but within the bounds of possibility.
Clearly you believe, no KNOW, despite the evidence, indeed in the face of the evidence, for political rather than scientific reasons.
Well thankfully the only consensus that matters (the people) think that your "scientific consensus" is a crock of shit and that is why there will be no political or legislative action taken. Cry all you want, you have lost. The debate is over and the democrats have abandoned your cause. It's over.
We may have lost politically which will prove tragic because anthropogenic global warming is real.And how the hell do you know that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong anyway? Should politicians and policy makers be guided by the overwhelming majority consensus of scientists or by the cranks? The question pretty much answers itself.
Above all else, that they had to lie. The truth doesnt lie. Liars lie. Its simple really, even a non scientist could figure that out.
Clearly, no amount of evidence would ever convince you on global warming. Therefore I conclude your position is political not scientific.
Evidence will always convince me. To date there has been none, just peoples opinions. You seem to hold those people in a higher regard than I, but frankly I hold most scientists in only a slightly higher regard than economists and weathermen. The again, I think for myself. You should try it some time.
I do think for myself but based on reason and evidence, not rightwing politics (or leftwing for that matter)or crank science.And in the case of global warming I see a very small minority of scientists, mostly lesser lights, who seem to do no research and do not publish, as well as a conglomeration of rightwing hacks.
Let me attempt to share my thought processes with you. I believe, as Bertrand Russell suggested, that policy makers and laymen are best guided by the scientific consensus, as they lack the scientific background necessary to actually evaluate the science, and if there is no consensus to withhold judgement. For years you denied there is a consensus but now you admit that there is, although you do not accept it. I would make a few points:
1) The consensus, according to the recent Stanford study, published in the Proceedings of the NAAS, is now about 97%. This is a very strong majority, and it is backed up by numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and by the leading scientific bodies in the world, including the National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society.
2) On the other hand, the 2-3% on the other side. It is difficult for me to understand why you believe they are right, given first your lack of scientific background, and second the fact that they do not publish in scientific journals or do research. Moreover they tend to be lesser lights, and in some cases hacks, like Fred Singer, and accept funding from energy interests. You have never been able to explain any remotely plausible reason why you know that they are right.
3) The major force in climate denial is not scientific at all, but based on rightwing politics, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, et al. I believe this is the real basis for your opinions.
Good god man let it go, your argument has lost. If there is a consensus nobody believes them. Move on.
Ah, the eternal struggle between reason and idiocy.
Not sure why this discussion continues.
The top AGW scientists got caught lying to protect their wealth,position, and stature.
This is not debated even by their friends who "investigated" them. The conclusion wasn't that they didn't lie, but that their lies didn't mean their conclusions were wrong.
If they really want to clear their names and prove their theory they should invite the "idiots" to do the investigation and answer their questions.
That's what I would do.
There was no "there" there in ClimateGate in the first place, and now three investigations have cleared them. Regardless, the science is there.
Post a Comment