Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[NeonSamurai]

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue.

Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.

If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly. If it wasn't done properly, it will show up in the science itself when properly reviewed, or retested. This is why I am waiting till the review is done before passing any judgment on the so called "climategate", as I have not see any significant evidence of any wrong doing.

The talking heads in this stuff is irrelevant, be it Limbaugh, Gore, or that climategate guy who sounds like his voice is going to break from all the extreme and fake emotion. These guys don't know squat, they are not scientists, they haven't read the reports, or if they have they don't really understand it (like the mistake Gore made). Never ever EVER base your own opinions on a subject based on what they say, as they are usually wrong, and heavily biased on the subject.

This is why I said look at the science itself and what the scientists have to say about it, and what areas are most supported by the greater scientific community. If most of the scientific community falls on a particular side, then the theory is highly credible (though never perfect).

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

Nope, just like it doesn't stop the mouthpieces on the other side of things either. They lie through their teeth, and spout all kinds of nonsense all the time, and make tons of mistakes too.



As a slight aside, I often wonder how many who involve themselves in these discussions actually have real scientific backgrounds and training (and I don't mean high school chemistry or physics). I suspect that only a handful of us have any formal training in scientific methodology and practice at a university level of education. I really get the strong impression that many do not have a thorough understanding of scientific method, as I often see a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding when it comes to scientific matters. I am curious to know how many actual scientists who are members here support each side. My impression is that most of the members who I know are/were scientists, and those that I suspect are scientists, mostly fall on the side of GW. But I could well be wrong too

Myself I am a scientist, though my area of expertise falls under the social sciences (I am however heavily trained in scientific/experimental methodology, and statistics).

I also wonder how many here would be actually willing and able to change their minds on a subject, or if their views are strictly faith/party based (and thus nigh unchangeable). For me to change my view on this subject, the scientific consensus on the subject would have to change to a new theory. Such as if human caused global warming was proven incorrect by stronger evidence or the weight of evidence shifted to a new better theory.

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.

If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly.

You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.

Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.

Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.

This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground.

[SteamWake]

Big Al dodges more questions

[Morts]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

You are incorrect. The motive came first. Then the trick was to work out how to use 'science' to sell the idea convincingly.

Global warming started as a political agenda to address the issue of more fairly distributing wealth and technology across the planet. The tricky part was how to achieve that end result without letting the masses know that that was the real agenda.

Global Warming was the answer they came up with. You blame the wealthy, technologically advanced countries for any extreme climatic changes, even though most of those changes are naturally occurring phenomena as the planet continues to evolve, and then you try and guilt those technologically advanced countries into financially compensating the less advanced countries.

This is not a new idea. As I said in an earlier post, I was present at a meeting 30 years ago where this very scenario was addressed. The only surprise to me was that it took them such a long time to get the idea off the ground.

dont forget your tinfoil hat

[antikristuseke]

I had to, for the lulz.
And as a note, the first person to predict warming from CO2 emissions was Svante August Arrhenius, and he published most of his work from 1900 to 1908 on that subject. Your 30 year number is off a bit.

[TDK1044]

In the end, GW is one of those subjects that will still be being passionately discussed many years from now. You have extremists on both sides of the scientific argument, and those who believe that the issue is as much politically based as it is scientifically based.

Personally, I no longer give the subject a moments thought.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! He used "Truth" in the title, and that proves it!

[AVGWarhawk]

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

Why was he there?
He's no longer represents USA officialy, or does he?
I find his presense there to be very confusing.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, Gore showed up like a rockstar. I think he is representing his wallet. Here is the blunder:

"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Wieslav Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years," The Times quoted Gore, as saying.
But Maslowski says that this was never a figure they agreed to.
"I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said.

Nice job Al! You go man!

http://business.rediff.com/report/20...en-blunder.htm

I think I'm more used to hearing his name pronounce Algore (like Igore).
This explains why very nicely.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Why was he there?
He's no longer represents USA officialy, or does he?
I find his presense there to be very confusing.

He has a vested interest in the issue. Regardless of wether or not he is in an 'offical' capacity for the United States he is viewed as if he is.

Many view him as if he 'speaks for all of america' which of course is a mistaken impression but a useful one.