Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
ClimateGate
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] Gore [URL=http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/al-gore-denies-he-is-carbon-billionaire-1814199.html]denies[/URL] he's en route to becoming a carbon billionaire, but he has a company that already sells its indulgences to all of us original carbon sinners and he is otherwise positioned to profit immensely. I have no problem with Gore being a capitalist who strategically invests . . . more power to him in that regard . . . but considering he's trying to create the market he's primed for by, for instance, going off the same discredited hockey stick which we now know was the result of a concerted effort to "contain the putative MWP" (e.g. hide the ever so unhelpful Medieval Warm Period that outshone recent temperatures tremendously, per [URL=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/]some ice core data[/URL]) and using all sorts of other dubious claims in his quest to politicize the science, I do call him out for being a dishonest twat. (Even if he doesn't care because he's already laughing his way to the bank.) Hell, he [URL=http://www.slate.com/id/2237789/]didn't even trouble himself[/URL] to become familiar with ClimateGate before trying to dismiss it. As to the main point and your peculiar strawman regarding a worldwide conspiracy, I already made the point that it was not so. What it is, however, is very bad science. And the problem is compounded by the way CRU and their buddies handled things. For instance, global temperature records could have meaning for a wide variety of researchers. Michael (hockey stick) Mann's efforts to hide the MWP could throw off actual researchers in a wide variety of fields. Underhanded tactics like getting editors sacked and otherwise bullying the peer review process could cause others to misdirect themselves rather than go against prevailing wisdom on the temperature record. AGW alarmist selections of specific helpful tree ring cores over others can misdirect locally. And, of course, it was all done with a wink and a nod as they held their data and methods close to their chest. As Jones told one guy who wanted to review the data, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Compare AGW theories with Darwinism. The latter elegantly tied together existing observations from geology and biology, continuing evidence supported it, and later it became highly refined thanks to genetic research and such. There were predictions that panned out. Folks show data freely. AGW, on the other hand, has made no functional predictions that have panned out, and it's really shocking just how much of their data is fantasy-based. Instead of tying together existing knowledge, it requires that one ignore vast amounts of it (e.g. the MWP). Instead of free flow of data, you just get conclusions and name-calling or worse if you question them. The proof is not how it corresponds to reality, but whether or not "consensus" can be claimed, as if the atmosphere gives a damn what we think. And so on. AGW reminds me a lot more of creationism than science, and that's sad. Worse is that they both rely on religion ... creationism is driven by its adherents' belief in a creator, and global warming by believers in the new secular religion of environmentalism. In both cases the resulting flaws are the same. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3