Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#46    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:06 PM

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

I wish I had the science background to do that Matt.
I DO have a background that allows me to analyze how some of the conclusions were reached. And I can tell you with certainty, that if these were engineering issues, and data was treated this way, decisions and policy decided based on what I have seen, someones ass would be fired, funding would be pulled (millions of dollars), and careers would end.
Well there is over 40 years of data backing this up as well as satellite and ground recordings from numerous different sources (unassociated) that corroborate the results. Seem my previous post regarding quote mining and contextualising.

Quote

Sides are one thing, there are always schools-of-thought, but in this instance, political sides were created, and science was put on the back burner.
There is only one side which is firmly in the political camp and that is the denialists, not the sceptics, not those who's evidence points to anthropogenic effects.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#47    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:15 PM

View PostMattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

I cannot agree with that, the climate e-mails were used by certain sources as an exercise in quote mining. The peer-review stuff over blatant attempts at fraud by Soon and Baliunas was referred to in the e-mails, but never acknowledge by those trying to argue that this was Mann and Jones trying to pervert the peer-review process. That was something done by De Freitas at the journal Climate Research who accepted Soon and Baliunas' paper despite the obvious errors within the piece and their lies about funding claims regarding NOAA and NASA. The editorial staff were greatly aggrieved about this being passed when it was highly inaccurate. The then chief editor, Otto Kinne, decided to alter the review process in the journal meaning all editors had to agree on something for it to be published. Mann attempted to write a rebuttal to the journal, but de Freitas blocked it being published and half the staff quit.

You want misconduct and black-balling, I suggest you look further into those mined quotes and the circumstance surrounding them.

Again, I see nothing about false data unless of course you mean adding recorded temps "trick" which is so well hidden that they mention it in papers when doing it or Briffa's so called hidden decline, which is also mentioned in the paper and refers to proxies failing to match recorded temperature.
And as we discuss further and further, we delve into science I can barely grasp.

Let me try to run an analogy by you.

I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I'm a citizen, and I pay enough attention to the law and policies to get an opinion on them. When a lawyer or politician tells me "shut up and mind your business, your not a lawyer or a politician so your opinion doesn't count", I WILL have a fit.
I feel the same way about this science and the politics surrounding it. I don't believe the IPCC or the scientists that control the data fed to the IPCC, because they get to the point where they are saying, "shut up, your not a climatologist, mind your business and we'll establish global policy and we'll tell you what your opinion should be and tell you what you need to believe".
In both cases, I don't believe they are being altruistic or unbiased. And I don't mean they are biased scientifically, I think the scientists are biased POLITICALLY. And the politicians bias is based on power and influence.
I look forward to an un-biased scientific conclusion.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#48    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:19 PM

View PostMattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 04:06 PM, said:

Well there is over 40 years of data backing this up as well as satellite and ground recordings from numerous different sources (unassociated) that corroborate the results. Seem my previous post regarding quote mining and contextualising.


There is only one side which is firmly in the political camp and that is the denialists, not the sceptics, not those who's evidence points to anthropogenic effects.
Even the use of the word "denialist" is designed to cast a cloud over any one that does not agree with the science that the pro-global warming believe is correct.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#49    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 28 January 2010 - 04:22 PM

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 04:15 PM, said:

And as we discuss further and further, we delve into science I can barely grasp.

Let me try to run an analogy by you.

I'm not a lawyer or a politician. I'm a citizen, and I pay enough attention to the law and policies to get an opinion on them. When a lawyer or politician tells me "shut up and mind your business, your not a lawyer or a politician so your opinion doesn't count", I WILL have a fit.
I feel the same way about this science and the politics surrounding it. I don't believe the IPCC or the scientists that control the data fed to the IPCC, because they get to the point where they are saying, "shut up, your not a climatologist, mind your business and we'll establish global policy and we'll tell you what your opinion should be and tell you what you need to believe".
In both cases, I don't believe they are being altruistic or unbiased. And I don't mean they are biased scientifically, I think the scientists are biased POLITICALLY. And the politicians bias is based on power and influence.
I look forward to an un-biased scientific conclusion.

But that is not what happened in the slightest, despite the portrayal by certain outlets.
The scientists do produce policy at all. In fact the IPCC cannot set any policy or law for a nation, they actually just supply data that is used in reports. There is no control of data going to the IPCC, otherwise people like McIntyre would never have been invited to partake in discussion. I believe you have been seriously misinformed about the scenario here.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#50    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:10 PM

View PostMattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 04:22 PM, said:

But that is not what happened in the slightest, despite the portrayal by certain outlets.
The scientists do produce policy at all. In fact the IPCC cannot set any policy or law for a nation, they actually just supply data that is used in reports. There is no control of data going to the IPCC, otherwise people like McIntyre would never have been invited to partake in discussion. I believe you have been seriously misinformed about the scenario here.
This all falls back to the same old story.
Global warming is real, and if you don't agree, you are a "denialist", you have been lied to, or you are stupid. There has never been any wrong doing and all the science says it's real, and all the science that points in any other direction is fabricated or manipulate, or comes from the pocket of big-oil.
I don't buy it, in large part because how even the mere appearance of questioning the conclusions drawn by those who support global warming is met with hostility and elitist bullying.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#51    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:14 PM

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 05:10 PM, said:

This all falls back to the same old story.
Global warming is real, and if you don't agree, you are a "denialist", you have been lied to, or you are stupid. There has never been any wrong doing and all the science says it's real, and all the science that points in any other direction is fabricated or manipulate, or comes from the pocket of big-oil.
I don't buy it, in large part because how even the mere appearance of questioning the conclusions drawn by those who support global warming is met with hostility and elitist bullying.
Actually, no, I did make it specifically clear about the difference there. I pointed out the errors in the claims. So please to do not make such claims when they are not true, please look at what I have said regarding this situation again.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#52    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:25 PM

View PostMattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

Actually, no, I did make it specifically clear about the difference there. I pointed out the errors in the claims. So please to do not make such claims when they are not true, please look at what I have said regarding this situation again.
No Matt, I will have my opinion. Maybe where YOU work you can behave this way, but HERE EDIT. You display the same arrogance here as those pretentious turds did in their emails. How about YOU look at what I have said regarding this situation again. I can claim your lying just as easily if you would rather. Much of this has become a "he said/she said" scenario rather than a hard science issue. If it WAS a hard science issue alone, and NOT so politically charged, it would barely be a blip on these forums or in the international media. Perhaps you should disclose your own agenda just so we are all clear on why you insist on calling anyone with a differing opinion a liar.
I have NEVER had an issue with you or even your science. What I do have an issue with is how climate science has been politicized and turned into a big-money ponzi scheme by BOTH sides of the issue.

Edited by Fluffybunny, 28 January 2010 - 05:49 PM.
Remove offensive comment

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#53    Siara

Siara

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:43 PM

View Post747400, on 27 January 2010 - 04:44 PM, said:

Does sound rather like how if anyone differed from the official line on other matters in the past, e.g. that the sun went round the earth, they were denounced as a heretic, I can't help thinking.

Think about the fact that the man who first said the earth went around the sun actually had some education in the field.

When the correlation is between the alternate theory, financial gain and lack of education in the field that might mean something.


#54    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:43 PM

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

No Matt, I will have my opinion. Maybe where YOU work you can behave this way, but HERE you can please kiss my ass. You display the same arrogance here as those pretentious turds did in their emails. How about YOU look at what I have said regarding this situation again. I can claim your lying just as easily if you would rather. Much of this has become a "he said/she said" scenario rather than a hard science issue. If it WAS a hard science issue alone, and NOT so politically charged, it would barely be a blip on these forums or in the international media. Perhaps you should disclose your own agenda just so we are all clear on why you insist on calling anyone with a differing opinion a liar.
I have NEVER had an issue with you or even your science. What I do have an issue with is how climate science has been politicized and turned into a big-money ponzi scheme by BOTH sides of the issue.

You have not read what I have written at all. You have failed to take the context into account, I gave that specifically. I am not being arrogant at all.
I called Monckton a liar because he is one. I never called others liars and I actually made a specific differentiation between the likes of Monckton and others and if you re-read my earlier responses you would have seen that.
You will be amazed what gets into the mass-media as science which isn't, mass media is not a good gauge of science.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#55    Siara

Siara

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,427 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:46 PM

Scientists to reach conclusions for pay are kind of like hired military mercenaries.


#56    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:49 PM

Now is a good time for folks to step back and take a break. It is too heated for serious discussion.

Eqg, that is way out of line, there is no need for comments like that.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.

#57    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:53 PM

View PostMattshark, on 28 January 2010 - 05:43 PM, said:

You have not read what I have written at all. You have failed to take the context into account, I gave that specifically. I am not being arrogant at all.
I called Monckton a liar because he is one. I never called others liars and I actually made a specific differentiation between the likes of Monckton and others and if you re-read my earlier responses you would have seen that.
You will be amazed what gets into the mass-media as science which isn't, mass media is not a good gauge of science.
I wasn't even referring to Moncton.
How dare you tell me I have not read what you wrote.
You are being shockingly arrogant.
You will be amazed at the science that relies on politics to make it acceptable. AMAZED.
It seems that you simply attack anyone that doesn't fall in line with what you say, by telling them they didn't read what you said. CLEARLY if we read your posts we would AGREE with you whole-heartedly.
Is this how your brand of science works? If I don't agree with you...and I mean agree with an opinion...I am branded as "wrong", stupid, or I just didn't read your post? If so, I'll stick to my own discipline, where I can show the scientists that no matter what their "math" says, a thing doesn't work.

Edited by eqgumby, 28 January 2010 - 05:54 PM.

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#58    eqgumby

eqgumby

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,576 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida Panhandle

  • If you have genuine psi-powers, you can change the world overnight. So do it, or stop playing Dragon-Ball Z with my brain!

Posted 28 January 2010 - 06:01 PM

View PostFluffybunny, on 28 January 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

Now is a good time for folks to step back and take a break. It is too heated for serious discussion.

Eqg, that is way out of line, there is no need for comments like that.
DUDE! He's calling me a LIAR for expressing an OPINION! I'm TOTALLY throwing up the BS flag.
When you tell me I can be called a LIAR for voicing an opinion, or tell me that I am not allowed to disagree with pro-global warming scientists on their political goals, I'll delete my account. You won't even need to suspend it.
Hell, if I was just positing an agenda over and over...which has been done...I could see a rebuke from you. All I am saying, and have been saying, is based on both sides of the story, I am unable to make an educated decision myself, because I don't have the science to weed out the crap from the reality! I'm not even calling one side or the other sheep, or fools, or right-wing idiots or left-wing lemmings!

Credentials/Background<--This is a link!


It's not about tolerance and it's certainly not about searching for truth. It's about the chic of the intelligentsia. ---  Harmon-E Cherry
http://chzgifs.files...chucknorris.gif

#59    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 28 January 2010 - 06:07 PM

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 05:53 PM, said:

I wasn't even referring to Moncton.
How dare you tell me I have not read what you wrote.
You are being shockingly arrogant.
You will be amazed at the science that relies on politics to make it acceptable. AMAZED.
It seems that you simply attack anyone that doesn't fall in line with what you say, by telling them they didn't read what you said. CLEARLY if we read your posts we would AGREE with you whole-heartedly.
Is this how your brand of science works? If I don't agree with you...and I mean agree with an opinion...I am branded as "wrong", stupid, or I just didn't read your post? If so, I'll stick to my own discipline, where I can show the scientists that no matter what their "math" says, a thing doesn't work.
Then please tell me who you were referring too? I certainly never attacked you, I have said McIntyre is a quote mine and, I offered context and explanation for what has been written and reason to why the "climategate" e-mails have been taken out of context.
Please tell me why I have been arrogant?
This science is accepted very much in the scientific community
Who have I attacked exactly? I have made a clear and distinct division between those who are merely sceptical and those who outright deny in the face of evidence. I am failing to see why you are attacking me here.

View Posteqgumby, on 28 January 2010 - 06:01 PM, said:

DUDE! He's calling me a LIAR for expressing an OPINION!
Please re-read what I have wrote because I have not once called you a liar.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#60    Fluffybunny

Fluffybunny

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,136 posts
  • Joined:24 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Male

  • "Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
    Thomas Paine

Posted 28 January 2010 - 06:14 PM

Both of you, just stop. Take a break. This is out of hand. This is too heated to continue as is. Eqg, I understand why you are upset, but continuing to discuss it when you are is only going to complicate matters.

Please, I am asking you both to just take a break and clear your heads and come back after a while when you are not as upset.

Too many people on both sides of the spectrum have fallen into this mentality that a full one half of the country are the enemy for having different beliefs...in a country based on freedom of expression. It is this infighting that allows the focus to be taken away from "we the people" being able to watch, and have control over government corruption and ineptitude that is running rampant in our leadership.

People should be working towards fixing problems, not creating them.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users