• 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.

Hide The Decline

I didn't watch the video and probably won't, but, are they claiming that people all over the world are somehow melting glaciers to hide the "fact" that the earth is actually cooling rather than warming?
 
It's to make fun of people whose pastime while posing as professional scientists is to....

"Making up data the old hard way
Fudging the numbers day by day
ignoring the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the Decline..."
Edited by LibraryLady: 
There was a notification in another thread not to post these email. Posting them in the video is included.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A.A.Alfie said:
Who actually cares who's science it is? It is topical humour.



Oh I see. He gives his explanation and end of story right? Sadly no. This is going to take more like a year to sort out, not a week. And we here, certainly wont be the ones determining the truth of anything. In the meantime settle in for more ridiculing of the false gods.



Nothing is sacred does not equate to everything is in good taste.

http://video.google.com.au/videosea...+or+not+to+be+lyrics&vid=-4467537389292367313

Mel Brooks: The Hitler rap
Charlie Chaplin: The Great Dictator

Just a couple of little known comedians that have taken on Nazism and Hitler - off the top of my head

And another link pointing out nothing is sacred - not even Auschwitz.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1499500




The motivation for comedy or satire (you say mockery) is to get a laugh.
In this case: Success!
Click to expand...

For the rectum breathers, I guess it might be, but for real thinking people, not so much. But, then, most political cartoonists today (at least) are biased slimeballs anyway - quit looking at them years ago.
 
Is there anything that is more politically biased than science, at least in the JREF forum?
Discussions here turn into bickering and political posturing faster than pigs head for grub.
Probably because the majority are employed in politically charged scientific endeavors.
 
Last edited:
Sparky said:
Why not? It is rather humorous.
Click to expand...

in all this storm in a teacup over whether or not this video is an affront to science or scientists, or who faked whose data, the really shocking, appalling aspect of this video has been missed.... some people actually believe it's funny. this tired amalgamation of animation cliches and trite parody lyrics is an affront to comedy.
 
zeusbheld said:
in all this storm in a teacup over whether or not this video is an affront to science or scientists, or who faked whose data, the really shocking, appalling aspect of this video has been missed.... some people actually believe it's funny. this tired amalgamation of animation cliches and trite parody lyrics is an affront to comedy.
Click to expand...

Or on the other hand; it's just lol funny to those with a sense of humour.
 
pchams said:
Is there anything that is more politically biased than science, at least in the JREF forum?
Discussions here turn into bickering and political posturing faster than pigs head for grub.
Probably because the majority are employed in politically charged scientific endeavors.
Click to expand...

How did you find out? I thought I hadn't told anyone here.
 
In regards to hiding the decline, the issue has been public for years now and has been discussed in the AR4. Steve McIntyre himself knew all about it, since he was the reviewer who raised it. The response was that the issue would be raised publicly in the AR4, and it was. Another beat up.
 
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/

Climate change sceptic and fully-qualified blogger Martin Bishop said: "As soon as these emails were released the world's glaciers resumed their normal, icey behaviour, as long-predicted by some of London's most important journalists.

"This is the smoking iceberg that fires a polar bear of truth between the eyes of hysteria and communism."

He added: "More than half the world's journalists who have read Nigel Lawson's book now accept that the atmosphere could not possibly have been affected by setting fire to millions of tons of coal, oil and gas every single day for 150 years while at the same time chopping down most of the really big trees.
Click to expand...

:D
 
The real cause of climate change:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...ses-global-warming,-say-experts-200911202244/

WOMEN who know their place emit less carbon dioxide than uppity madames with so-called careers, it was confirmed last night.

The Institute for Studies found that staying at home with children and not driving a stylish city-car produced a smaller carbon footprint than rushing around in a natty suit while using a mobile phone to arrange marketing strategies.

Professor Henry Brubaker said: "Woman who know their place are on average 40% less carboniferous than women who think they are just as good as me.

"In fact, I would suggest that Islamic dictatorships who forbid women to drive on pain of stoning will one day be seen as the heroes of the ecological movement."

Professor Brubaker said the emissions caused by decent women were sustainable, including Friday night sex with a low energy light on, though more work was needed to control the pollution caused by the baking of delicious pies.
Click to expand...
 
Lucifuge Rofocale said:
Ok the alleged "explanations" of the trick are just FUD.
Read http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html
It's the code wich shows clearly that the data has been forced to match the theory.
Click to expand...

I followed your link, and then clicked on the first "find" which purported to have "subroutines that fail without telling the user". I looked at the code, and it was a simple file read. It opens the file, counts the lines, then closes the file. Seriously, it's standard issue syntax. I have never seen anyone worry about error handling for an algorithm like that. In other words, they're lying to you about this.

I'm not a climatologist, but I am a coder, and this is complete ********. For some reason, all of these deniers keep making the same ignorant types of "skepticism", which is better described as stupidity, based on their inability to discuss subjects they don't understand.

Sheesh.
 
Read a little more of this, and my god, is that just ignorant tripe. They're complaining about inefficient code, which is valid, except that they're making it sound like bad code is the same as willful fraud. How the hell do you make that leap? Have you ever done code in a large group? You break up tasks and when they code comes back, sometimes it's done in a weird way, but time is tight, money is tight, so you test it and if it works, it stays. Who the hell has time to refactor everything? Especially in academia, where lots of work gets done by students?

If the code is flawed or clunky, rewrite it and submit a patch.

To suggest that this debunks climatology as a science is just beyond stupid.
 
Unabogie said:
If the code is flawed or clunky, rewrite it and submit a patch.
Click to expand...

Or ....

Edited by LibraryLady: 
There was a notification in another thread not to post these email. Posting them in the video is included


hide the decline


Catchy tune
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A.A.Alfie said:
Or ....
Edited by LibraryLady: 
Edited for Rule 4

hide the decline


Catchy tune
Click to expand...

Is this your way of admitting that I won the point? Is so, just say it. You'll feel better.

ETA: Since this is actually an important point, writing code is the kind of thing that no one wants to do with something they didn't design. You never open up someone else's code and rejoice at the simplicity and beauty of it. Everyone has their own shortcuts and naming conventions, which makes working from your own code easier, but has the downside of making other people's code harder to read, which is why you add comments (code which is not executed but is only there to explain the code that is).

What this means is that coding is like electrical wiring. Have you ever noticed that every electrician who looks at your wiring expresses SHOCK at how badly the previous work was done?

That's how coders are. We hate dealing with other people's code. We'd much rather rewrite the whole damn thing than take the time to learn someone's system.

I point this out because one of the things in the emails is someone complaining about someone else's code, and the deniers are making that sound as if that's meaningful. It's not. It's just part of the job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unabogie said:
Is this your way of admitting that I won the point? Is so, just say it. You'll feel better.
Click to expand...

I need a laughing dog.:D

Not at all, but if you want the point it's yours - it bothers me not.
But isn't this thread supposed to be about the very, very funny video? I was just trying to steer the conversation back to the OP, in my own fashion.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
I need a laughing dog.:D

Not at all, but if you want the point it's yours - it bothers me not.
But isn't this thread supposed to be about the very, very funny video? I was just trying to steer the conversation back to the OP, in my own fashion.
Click to expand...
Or you know you could answer the question?
EDIT:
And show me the posts!!!!!
 
Last edited:
A.A.Alfie said:
I need a laughing dog.:D

Not at all, but if you want the point it's yours - it bothers me not.
But isn't this thread supposed to be about the very, very funny video? I was just trying to steer the conversation back to the OP, in my own fashion.
Click to expand...


Maybe you'll get more LOL's in the humor section? This is where people usually discuss science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom