Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[technoextreme]

I know a lot of scientists. They are much too concerned about whatever nuance they choose to study to be worried about global domination.

The other thing to point out is that "big oil" companies, like Chevron and BP, are actually leading the way in actually changing where energy comes from. Chevron is the leading geothermal company in the world. Exxon is developing a technology to essentially grow oil in a lab from algae. BP is trying to apply natural gas to as many applications as possible. It isn't just lip service, these private companies are putting billions of dollars behind these projects. Even the oil companies recognize that there is a problem, and in fact, most of them are more aware of the specific challenges than their supposed enemies, the "green" crowd.

Hell, that isn't even scratching the surface of what they are doing. I believe Exxon actually developed a new membrane for Lithium Ion batteries that will melt only at higher temperatures preventing catastrophic explosions due to shorts.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

So you know some scientists? Irrelevant anecdotery.

I'm all for getting away from oil, but that's not really what this is about.

 

[m_huber]

So you know some scientists? Irrelevant anecdotery.

I'm all for getting away from oil, but that's not really what this is about.

I suppose you are correct that I am citing anecdotal evidence from personal experience, but I'm confident that if you were somehow able to do an objective study of the intentions of scientists, you would find that their ambitions have much more to do with making the world a better place than becoming rich. With the level of specialization required to be a scientist, if one of them desires to be rich, they have an easy path by going into industry, where salaries are considerably higher than in scientific fields.

The point about big oil is that the companies that stand to lose the most from climate change legislation are doing the most to help the climate. Meaning that they not only recognize that there is a problem, but they are actively doing work to correct it at great cost to themselves.

 

[technoextreme]

So you know some scientists? Irrelevant anecdotery.

I'm all for getting away from oil, but that's not really what this is about.

No. Its about a bunch of ignorant people who have no idea about the problems present in the peer review process and think that "climate gate" is something new. If you actually talk to scientists they will readily admit the problems with the process.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. Its about a bunch of ignorant people who have no idea about the problems present in the peer review process and think that "climate gate" is something new. If you were truly concerned then you wouldn't just be whinnying about climate gate. Its selective bias at its finest.

D ont
E even
N o
I
A m
L ying

Denial. That's what Monibot said.

 

[technoextreme]

Yes the person who I promised to slap outside the head with the Journal of Homeopathy when caught lying about people saying that peer review is 100% perfect.

Amazed that any scientists would sell their professional integrity for an ideology of power? It happened all the time in the past century.

Its happened multiple times within this decade. Care to show me your outrage over those incidents. Just show me one. Come on. I can show you about twenty incidences where I have complained about the cranks. I dare ya.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yes the person who I promised to slap outside the head with the Journal of Homeopathy when caught lying about people saying that peer review is 100% perfect.

Its happened multiple times within this decade. Care to show me your outrage over those incidents. Just show me one. Come on. I can show you about twenty incidences where I have complained about the cranks. I dare ya.

Physical violence is the first choice of the ignorant. That aside, please explain where I have lied?
Additionally I would like your thoughts on Monibot statement about the denial of the warmers wjen it comes to climategate (I really dislike that term).

 

[Piggy]

I keep saying, this will take a year or so to sort out. Not a few days and the denials of the warmers about its severity are delusional.

You can check out the context on RealClimate, and get the story on what these emails are actually about, if you care to.

Fact is, it's already been "sorted out". This is a non-story.

Of course, AGW deniers will keep up their hysterical and fantasy-based reactions for much longer than a year or so.

 

[geni]

This storm in a teacup has:

- triggered calls for an inquiry by a former British Chancellor of the Exchequer

Norman Lamont? Former for a very good reason. Even by John Major Tory standards the guy was unpopular. Serious barrel scaping going on there.

 

[Piggy]

We are talking about some very rich men manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions.

No, we're not. That's a CT fantasy.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Norman Lamont? Former for a very good reason. Even by John Major Tory standards the guy was unpopular. Serious barrel scaping going on there.

Maybe, I don't know the man at all. What is relevant is that he oversaw the payment of tens of millions in cash (pounds, Euros, dollars) to further the science on AGW. He now thinks that it needs investigation. Why? Because he is suspicious there might be some sort of fraud would be my guess.

Does no-one want to address what Monibot said?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You can check out the context on RealClimate, and get the story on what these emails are actually about, if you care to.

Fact is, it's already been "sorted out". This is a non-story.

Of course, AGW deniers will keep up their hysterical and fantasy-based reactions for much longer than a year or so.

Aren't realclimate kinds guilty by association anyway?
Just asking.

 

[geni]

Maybe, I don't know the man at all. What is relevant is that he oversaw the payment of tens of millions in cash (pounds, Euros, dollars) to further the science on AGW.

No he didn't. He was chancellor not education secretary or Secretary of State for the Environment. Research grants would be somewhat outside his remit (realisticaly as would any spending amounts bellow the £100 million mark). We can also be absolutely certian that he didn't oversee euro payments. He was kinda sacked in 1993.

He now thinks that it needs investigation. Why? Because he is suspicious there might be some sort of fraud would be my guess.

Sorry you are seriously speculating about the thought processes's of Norman Lamont post 1993? Why?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No he didn't. He was chancellor not education secretary or Secretary of State for the Environment. Research grants would be somewhat outside his remit (realisticaly as would any spending amounts bellow the £100 million mark). We can also be absolutely certian that he didn't oversee euro payments. He was kinda sacked in 1993.

Like I said, I know nothing of the bloke. I live in Australia and have never heard of him before today. So thanks for the clarification.

Sorry you are seriously speculating about the thought processes's of Norman Lamont post 1993? Why?

Sure, why not. Isn't that kinda what we're doing here? I've had my guess at why he wants an investigation, tell me what you reckon.

 

[technoextreme]

Physical violence is the first choice of the ignorant.

No. Im just fed up with your ignorance and going the whole blatantly and obvious sarcastic route. The sad fact is that you can't even notice it. You are a wimp.

That aside, please explain where I have lied?

Ooo you know the whole response to my claims that any legitimate scientist and skeptic actually knows the problems involved with the peer review scientist and your attempt to claim the fact that we are moving the goal posts. Its a really dumb argument to be making given the fact that I can probably dredge up huge forum wars involving problems with peer review.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No. Im just fed up with your ignorance and going the whole blatantly and obvious sarcastic route. The sad fact is that you can't even notice it. You are a wimp.

No I choose to ignore your rantings.
"Wimp". giggle

Ooo you know the whole response to my claims that any legitimate scientist and skeptic actually knows the problems involved with the peer review scientist and your attempt to claim the fact that we are moving the goal posts. Its a really dumb argument to be making given the fact that I can probably dredge up huge forum wars involving problems with peer review.

I'll take that as a "No", then shall I?
My thing with these peer reviews is that last week (yes last week) the warmers were saying that everything had been peer reviewed and as such it was the holy grail, the last proof, required to validate scientific claims.
This week, those same warmers are saying that the peer review has problems and always did. Moreover, to many people, it now looks like a mates club - a bit like when kids correcting their best friends tests when at school..

 

[geni]

Like I said, I know nothing of the bloke. I live in Australia and have never heard of him before today. So thanks for the clarification.

Australia has the westminister system of goverment. Do you think that the Treasurer of Australia would deal with such matters?

Sure, why not. Isn't that kinda what we're doing here? I've had my guess at why he wants an investigation, tell me what you reckon.

I don't greatly care. He has no relivant qualifications or experence. Basic statistical probabilty means that there should be at least one Conservative politician with some level of historic profile who's prepared to appear in the papers calling for an enquiry.

 

[technoextreme]

No I choose to ignore your rantings.
"Wimp". giggle



I'll take that as a "No", then shall I?
My thing with these peer reviews is that last week (yes last week) the warmers were saying that everything had been peer reviewed and as such it was the holy grail, the last proof, required to validate scientific claims.
This week, those same warmers are saying that the peer review has problems and always did. Moreover, to many people, it now looks like a mates club - a bit like when kids correcting their best friends tests when at school..

Your lying. That is a dimwitted retard view of science that I know no scientist on this forum has. The ball is in your court to prove your claims. Show me the posts!!!!

Keep it civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Corsair 115]

Can it get any stupider than this?

I'm hard pressed to find a single correct assertion in the entire article.

It's the Toronto Sun, so it shouldn't be surprising. That newspaper is essentially a lite version of the U.K. tabloid newspapers.

 

[Orphia Nay]

No, we're not. That's a CT fantasy.

Exactly my own thoughts after reading the quote in the OP. The language is steeped in conspiracy-theory-speak.

f you're wondering how the robot-like march of the world's politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed "climategate," it's because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a **** about "the science."
Edited by Cuddles: Breach of rule 10 removed.

They never have.

...

Now they and their media shills -- who sneered that all who questioned their phony "consensus" were despicable "deniers," the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust -- are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.

...

What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.

...

All it's done is make hedge fund managers, speculators and Big Energy giddy with windfall profits, while making everyone else poorer by driving up the cost of energy, and thus of most goods and services, which need energy to be lighted, heated, cooled, grown, constructed, manufactured, produced and transported.

Global warming deniers have made some interesting points, but this article makes them look like a bunch of loonies.