Why 'climategate' won't stop greens

[Dr Adequate]

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 ...

Quote?

 

[technoextreme]

Quote?

I doubt you are going to get one.

 

[Piggy]

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

Oh, I love that logic.

Accuse an entire branch of science of fraud. Then put bogus spin on a bunch of innocuous emails to attempt to prop up the accusation. Then ignore the actual explanation and context of those emails, provided by people who know what's going on, on the grounds that it's being provided by folks with an alleged vested interest in disproving the allegation.

You should tip off the "space exploration is a hoax" people to that little method there.

 

[daredelvis]

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 am a scientist, and you have busted us. We sit around drinking our morning coffee planning our final domination of the world and thus, your eventual enslavement.

Your comments about scientist reek of paranoid conspiracy theories, and the idea that the profit motive is on the side of the climate debate supported by peer reviewed science is preposterous.

I feel for the climatologist when I see these discussions. It must be like what I go through when I see Suzanne Somers pedaling her B.S. about cancer.

Daredelvis

 

[ddt]

Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change. Big business and big government have every reason to wish it away. The push for mitigation is only finally taking hold because a sizeable sector of "big business" has at last understood global warming as a serious risk.

QFT.

The only business I could think of that would profit from promoting the notion of warming is the dyke construction business.

Finally, "climategate" is a sham.

I tell you, what's going on now in American politics -- and apparently in parts of Canada, as well -- is difficult to believe even while you're watching it.

I'm surprised to see quite a number of Aussies posing here as AGW deniers too. And the British Daily Telegraph gives AGW deniers a platform too.

It's amazing how many people can convince themselves of things that not only don't match the facts, but don't even make sense.

It's one thing to believe in a coherent fantasy world. But to believe in a fantasy world that doesn't even add up... it's enough to make you want the seas to rise and swallow us all up after all.

Of course, the outlook on the importance of sea level rise differs quite a lot between a redneck from the Appalachians and a Dutchman living 2 meters below sea level. The first doesn't think about it, the latter sees half of his country and two thirds of the population vanishing below the seas with the projected 1 meter sea level rise during the rest of this century. Then I'm not even talking about the possibility that the Gulfstream might change course due to climate change, with fundamental impact on the climate of the whole of Western Europe.

I have a simple question to all AGW deniers. Are you willing to trade places with me? Let's put it less personal - are you willing to relocate to Bangladesh? IOW, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? After all, if there's no global warming, there's no sea level rise and you have nothing to fear.

 

[Piggy]

Of course, the outlook on the importance of sea level rise differs quite a lot between a redneck from the Appalachians and a Dutchman living 2 meters below sea level.

No no no... down here we're rednecks. Up in the mountains they're hillbillies. To be specific, I'm actually a cracker (and my hometown is in danger from sea level rise) but I have relatives who are hillbillies, crackers, rednecks, and lint-heads.

 

[a_unique_person]

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..

Show me where people said that or retract it.

 

[ddt]

No no no... down here we're rednecks. Up in the mountains they're hillbillies. To be specific, I'm actually a cracker (and my hometown is in danger from sea level rise) but I have relatives who are hillbillies, crackers, rednecks, and lint-heads.

Thanks for the correction and education in regional nicknames/slurs. To be fair, my hometown is not (yet) in danger from sea level rise, being a couple of meters above sea level, but I'm not so sure of that with the latest numbers. Thus far, melting glaciers in Switzerland and increased rainfall would be a more imminent thread.

I see precious few AGW deniers reacting to my proposal. Anyone of you AGW deniers care to disclose the altitude you live at?

 

[mailman]

And lastly, how anyone can start talking about cooling on the decade that saw the northern passage open for business is beyond me...

Mate, the Russians have been using the Northern Passage since WWII...oh and dont forget that the ships had two big **** off nuclear ice breakers accompany them...or where they only there to protect the crew from hungry, iceless polar bears?

Breach of rule 10 removed.

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

Mailman

 

[mailman]

Oh, I love that logic.

Accuse an entire branch of science of fraud. Then put bogus spin on a bunch of innocuous emails to attempt to prop up the accusation.

Awe, and you clowns call those of us who dont believe man is the sole cause of global warming, deniers!

Mailman

 

[Megalodon]

Mate, the Russians have been using the Northern Passage since WWII...oh and dont forget that the ships had two big **** off nuclear ice breakers accompany them...or where they only there to protect the crew from hungry, iceless polar bears?

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited for consistency.

Do you have something intelligent to remark about my factually correct post, or will you just keep contributing to the noise?

And no, the russians have not been using the Northern Passage for the simple reason that we didn't have a Northern Passage until now. They had icebreakers making way through the ice, but that was not a Northern Passage, very much by definition.

 

[JihadJane]

We are talking about some very rich men manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions. And yes the oil barons will still be in business.

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

Using the "CT" insult to close down debate is as myopic as misapplying a common habit of the rich ("manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions") to undermine warnings about climate change.

 

[technoextreme]

Using the "CT" insult to close down debate is as myopic as misapplying a common habit of the rich ("manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions") to undermine warnings about climate change.

What debate? We have one person applying vague conspiracy theories. Another one who refuses to back up his ridiculously bad straw men.

 

[billydkid]

Second, there is no profit motive behind climate change.

Are you kidding me? Al Gore is set to become the first greenie billionaire. The AGW religion and all of its adherents will cling to this no matter what the science ultimately says and no matter the sorts of people they have as church fathers.

 

[JihadJane]

What debate? We have one person applying vague conspiracy theories. Another one who refuses to back up his ridiculously bad straw men.

Fair point. Delete "to close down debate":

Using the "CT" insult is as myopic as misapplying a common habit of the rich ("manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions") to undermine warnings about climate change.

 

[Piggy]

Awe, and you clowns call those of us who dont believe man is the sole cause of global warming, deniers!

Sole cause? I don't know of anyone who believes that. Maybe they exist, but I haven't met them.

No, we call you "deniers" for the same reason that people who say the Nazis never meant to wipe out the Jews are called deniers, and folks who claim evolution is bunk are called deniers -- because the evidence is so overwhelming that to say "It ain't so" cannot be characterized as anything less than simple denial.

But of course you go even farther than mere denial and label folks who actually have a grasp of the science and the evidence as "clowns".

There may be a better term for that than "denier", but I don't care to get a yellow card.

 

[Piggy]

Using the "CT" insult to close down debate is as myopic as misapplying a common habit of the rich ("manipulating government regulation to profiteer while impoverishing millions") to undermine warnings about climate change.

I have no intention of attempting to close down debate, and calling a broom a broom is not an insult.

I'm not about to be bullyragged into refraining from calling a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory.

 

[Piggy]

Are you kidding me? Al Gore is set to become the first greenie billionaire. The AGW religion and all of its adherents will cling to this no matter what the science ultimately says and no matter the sorts of people they have as church fathers.

Ok, looks like we have to spell this out again....

Al

Gore

is

not

a

scientist.

 

[technoextreme]

Are you kidding me? Al Gore is set to become the first greenie billionaire.

Red herring fallacy. First of all tack on a couple magnitudes onto billion and you will be in the right range. Exxon Moble's polymer membrane is set to make that much money and it is only part of a single battery.

 

[Meed]

Probably beating a dead horse, but...

It's bizarre and self-defeating to use profit motive as an argument against AGW.

1. Hardly any motive has been demonstrated
2. Motive alone would not be proof of anything
3. The motive and accompanying evidence that has been found has been on the skeptic side (e.g. leaked memos)