• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ClimateGate - A great new Website

Megalodon said:
So you have a problem with English, too? I didn't say that you manufactured a quote. I wouldn't be able to prove such an assertion. I said you presented a manufactured quote. And you did...
Click to expand...

And what quote was that?



Is this supposed to prove that Gore had no support when saying that climate change was melting the Kilimanjaro's ice cap? Apparently there were scientific papers proposing the idea :)
Click to expand...

There were scientific papers on both sides of the debate. He only presented one side.
 
BenBurch said:
Lying does not make your point stronger.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to me, could you please use the "quote" button so that 1. you are talking to me, and 2. what it is you are referring to.

In this case, what I'm lying about.
 
Tomblvd said:
No, he means overhyping the dangers and leaving out the mitigating circumstances.

over-representation - to give too much representation to; represent in numbers that are disproportionately high.
Click to expand...

You can't even understand your own explanation. What you just said here, supports what Benchurch said, and not what you think you are saying!

Your invented meaning in the 1st sentence is in no way supported by your second sentence, which in fact says what Benchurch said.

Having an over-representation of men at a mixed dance doesn't mean the men are fake. It means there are too many of them. An over-representation of facts does not invalidate the facts it just means you have more of them, or are putting them forward more often that should be needed.
 
Tomblvd said:
BTW, we know that Kilimanjaro was snow-free about 11,000 years ago. Was that due to AGW? If not, how can that be?
Click to expand...

Sigh... :rolleyes:

Not that you'll read it, Tomblvd (since I'm smelling troll), but I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers here who will get something out of this...

Does past climate change disprove man-made global warming?

ETA: Where's Mhaze? Off to start another bogus thread or snipping more quotes out of context?
 
Last edited:
Tomblvd said:
Not that this will matter:

Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, speaking before editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, 1998, and quoted by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda,” Financial Post, 26 December 1998, from the Calgary Herald, December, 14, 1998. Cited by Fred Singer, page 4

How did you manage to determine that she did not say what the paper quoted?
Click to expand...

How did you manage to determine that it was?

(or are skeptics supposed to prove something didn't happen now?)


Tomblvd said:
I find it interesting that they so badly misquoted her, yet there's no evidence of a request for a retraction.
Click to expand...

Pfft! From these papers? C'mon! Calgary is an oil town. If the Herald took an AGW stance, their office would be burned to the ground overnight. At that time, the FP was owned by [Conrad Black] (convicted fraudster) and is now owned by the [Aspers] (some of the guys who founded and have funded and directed the [Fraser Institute] for decades)
 
blutoski said:
How did you manage to determine that it was?
Click to expand...

More to the point, the citation I found was obtained by following AGW dissenters' citations. If nothing else, the point is that it's clear that such a terrible citation is added to an inventory of 'damning quotes'. To their credit, this citation is verifiable at its original source, and complete enough for the skeptic to be comfortable with context.

I've made an effort to read the context of the citations provided. My impression is that the builders of these quote lists don't, or worse: read them and can't understand the meaning.

Further: I've made an effort to limit my citations to those that have full text so that the reader can absorb the context and meaning of the quote.

What I'm saying is: the reliance on quote-swapping as an argument strategy is itself a very suspicious activity that smells like crackpottery.


Regarding Christine Stewart's quote... my impression from this discussion is that it is being held up as supporting the thesis that climate change consequences are deliberately being invented or exaggerated. It doesn't, so I put forward that the authenticity of the quote is actually moot.

However, it would still be valuable to obtain original sources to get the correct wording (the quotes floating around the web do not match up) and to understand the context of the statement. My recollection of the Ministry under her direction is that she had established targets for reducing air pollution in the industrial triangle. I agree that this would be beneficial from a health perspective even if climate change was not influenced by human activity. Not much of a smoking gun for conspiracy there. Just a statement of fact.
 
Tomblvd said:
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
Click to expand...

Going back to the source, it seems that this quote is the result of gluing together fragments from two separate statements, and not mere ellipsis within one continuous statement.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html
 
Carefulplease said:
Going back to the source, it seems that this quote is the result of gluing together fragments from two separate statements, and not mere ellipsis within one continuous statement.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html
Click to expand...

Sneaky. So, not content to merely cherry-pick two sentences, he chopped them up and glued them together. He couldn't even find one suspicious sentence. He had to build one a la carte.

That can't possibly be an attempt to destroy the original meaning.
 
Carefulplease said:
Going back to the source, it seems that this quote is the result of gluing together fragments from two separate statements, and not mere ellipsis within one continuous statement.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html
Click to expand...

Mmmm.. I dunno, I think it might be fair, since it's from the same article.. the ellipsis was regarding a single speech and just cuts out the fluff inbetween, I think this is a stretch to say it's dishonest. Besides, in my opinion, it looks worse without!

'No matter if the science is all phony,' she said, 'there are collateral environmental benefits.' And then later, 'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'
 
I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?


*name calling is the worst argument
 
mhaze said:
Yes, there is a problem with the idea that "science is settled" thence "urgent action now" thence "convince the public" thence "lying and exaggerating is okay".

The problem with the construction A to B to C to D is that A is false, B is false, C is false, and D is false and morally reprehensible. Seems like things might be straightening out a bit in 2010 though.
Click to expand...

Ooh, tell me more

BenBurch said:
The only issue with Al Gore is that although he meant well, for some reason undecipherable to me the batcrap-crazy wing of the Right here in the USA hates him more than they ever hated Stalin.

So, automatically. anything he says becomes false and anything he does becomes a dastardly plot to destroy civilization.

Therefore his advocacy of this issue polarized these insane right-wingers against AGW for all time.

And that is what you will find; With the exception of some AGW-deniers who are batcrap-insane far left Communists (very very few in number) almost the entire balance of AGW deniers are on the far, far Right.
Click to expand...

From this.....

BenBurch said:
Very sad. You have turned your back on reality in the service of your politics.

I wish I could manage that trick, sometimes.
Click to expand...

To this..?


Ben's credibility... GONE!

mythstifieD said:
I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?


*name calling is the worst argument
Click to expand...

I was wondering when someone might actually get back to the OP.
The most extraordinary efforts to derail I have ever seen.
 
Last edited:
mythstifieD said:
I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?

*name calling is the worst argument
Click to expand...

The author of this article seems to be claiming that since there has been an increase in outgoing long wave radiations associated with CO2 from 1970 to 1997 this proves that there has been no increase in greenhouse effect. But the Earth has warmed in the meantime so it radiates more in the totality of the long wave spectrum. Increasing the concentration of CO2 delays, as it where, the outgoing long wave radiations in the CO2 absorption band. (It is being absorbed and reemitted back and forth a few times in between the Earth and several atmosphere layers). So, an increase in CO2 concentration produces a transient relative reduction in outgoing emissions in the CO2 band, until the Earth surface warming overcomes this and a new radiative steady state is achieved.

What is being observed is what physics predicts, it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
mythstifieD said:
I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?


*name calling is the worst argument
Click to expand...
The first thing I checked was the third link to (reputedly) disprove the AGW/CC hypothesis. What did I find in the abstract:

Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes.
Click to expand...
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

2nd one:

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established
Click to expand...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

1st one:

A comparison of the data was reported by Harries
et al (2001), and indicated that clear signatures of
increases in greenhouse gases between the two
measurement periods could be identified in the OLR
difference spectrum.
Click to expand...
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf

It seems your 'AmericanThinker' can't even read english.

You owe me 10 minutes of wasted life.
 
Mikemcc said:
The first thing I checked was the third link to (reputedly) disprove the AGW/CC hypothesis. What did I find in the abstract:

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

2nd one:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

1st one:

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf

It seems your 'AmericanThinker' can't even read english.

You owe me 10 minutes of wasted life.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this author merely claims that the three articles "contain data contradicting the AGW hypothesis", not that their authors conclude to the falsity of AGW. The purported refutation of AGW stems from his own heterodox analysis of the published data.
 
mythstifieD said:
I can't believe I just read 4 pages on a thread that was COMPLETELY off topic from the OP, and mostly consisted of "You deniers were tricked into believing some false quotes, therefore all of AGW-Skepticism is ridiculous!"...

How about you guys talk about this article that was recently posted to the website mentioned in the OP?

The AGW Smoking Gun

Forgive me if I sound like a 'creationist', or a 'crop circle believer', or a 'holocaust denier'* as I'm very new to the topic, but this does seem compelling to me. It can't be this simple?


*name calling is the worst argument
Click to expand...
Heyl It's a great new website, www.ClimateGate.com.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom