Climategate debunked!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Here is one person in particular:

Dr Willie Soon; A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal

Here are some older articles:
Polar Bear Junk Science, sponsored by the Koch's

Koch's "Spanish Study"

Koch's "Danish Study"

Google Search for "oil industry climate study"
"Did I see the Daily Mail link?"
Sure, and it's rehashing the same thing, over.... and over.... and over.... and over.... ad infinitum.

I'm going to point back, again, to an American study from a physicist who was a doubter.


I'll answer questions when I'm called to, but I'm not interested in getting in to tooth and nail debates on this issue any further. As OMG73 pointed out already, neither side, in this local case, has any intention of changing their point of view and thus I will continue to rely on science rather than a strong belief. As I said, Knarl's argument was used in an attempt to discredit the whole issue as OMG73 clearly highlighted. As disingenuous as fudging reports, misrepresenting data for the opposing side has the same effect.



 

hmmm. i thought solar activity was supposed to reach a high in the next few years. maybe we cannot jump to conclusions because there is so much contradicting data going around from reputable sources. global warming may or may not be true. it is hard to tell. it is something we probably cannot understand for years to come.
 

As is your's, thus why I said I'm not going tooth and nail any further. So please, take your pigeonholed views and attack someone else, I just provided links as requested.

You can have "belief" in whatever you want as you've proven to do time and time again by being such a business sympathizer. Science uses a proofing methodology to backup findings, and this is the whole point of being "peer reviewed," not to necessarily prove the findings, but to duplicate them. If you don't like the scientific method, then why don't you try to change it? Because you're only focus is "those damn liberals" as you've shown time and time again. You don't want proof, you just want to bark down the other side.

Like I said, I'm not going to go tooth and nail over the whole thing because conservatives don't want to believe the truth, they want to believe whatever supports their point of view.

I want a better world and I see as preserving the environment, unilateral equality and striving for the sake of humanity, not money, is going to leave our world in a better place. Go back to your super-rich pundits and business funded blog-parrots who are part of the same machine you desperately defend. Maybe when your grandchildren can't play outside because of air quality, can't drink the water because of water quality and can't find a job because of income inequality, maybe then you'll understand the garbage you defend.

Have a nice day.
 
Maybe when your grandchildren can't play outside because of air quality, can't drink the water because of water quality and can't find a job because of income inequality
Click to expand...
That will never happen. The government set up the EPA to protect us. they would never let air quality get that bad. if you cant find a job how does one even have an income? why do incomes have to be equal? i guess people who work hard in school go to college/work their way through college dont deserve a higher salary than the slacker high school dropout. but then again that would be only fair. 😀
 

A person who puts greed over the impact of such greed on human beings. You are very good at talking about change that would negatively impact a great amount of people while at the same time preserving your own situation. It's human nature, I just feel the need to think in terms of affects that benefit all of us, rather than me financially, mostly because I'm very comfortable financially.


You're extremely good at taking comments out of context and twisting them, you should go into politics yourself, you'd be great at it. BTW, I'm one of those people and going to college is what opened my eyes, seems you didn't have such an eye opening and makes me wonder if you went to college.

Also, based off of 1 report that has fudged data, both of you write off the whole of all other scientists research, including the independent study I've linked 2x in this thread. It's plain to see that your opinions are based on ideology and a belief in your politics. I don't care about the political side, really, because I feel both sides in this political game are working towards the same end; their own personal success (I'm talking about both parties here - thus the need for more diverse political atmosphere). Once you guys stop grouping all the research on a topic and writing it all off because one single study had wrong doing, it will be easier to take anything you guys say as valid. This is why I believe in science, this is why I keep looking at your statements and laughing, this is why I pulled Knarl to his wits end (and you guys highlighted exactly what I was talking about): Invented controversy to further the goals of the Oil/Coal industries.

1 wrong study =/= all scientific research, once this is understood, we can move on to actual substance again.
 
Dont worry ill be going to college soon. and im only in high school (I have a legit 4.1 gpa, not one of the public schools false 4.7 gpa). your college professors have indoctrinated you very well. my father has warned me about their overwhelmingly liberal ideals. He was a liberal once. born in raised in Canada so you can be sure of that. He has seen the light to say the least.

that isnt taken out of context. you are calling for more equal wages unless this-
can't find a job because of income inequality
Click to expand...
is not what you meant to say.

I've never said that global warming/climate change (which one is it?) isn't real ive stated that it is hard to determine. i said this-
maybe we cannot jump to conclusions because there is so much contradicting data going around from reputable sources. global warming may or may not be true. it is hard to tell. it is something we probably cannot understand for years to come.
Click to expand...
. You jumped to a conclusion that i do not believe climate change/global warming is real. Look who is reading what i am saying out of context. Just because i believe the EPA will not allow the environment to get so bad that it actually hurts us to be outside and love capitalism does not mean i do not believe it climate change/global warming.

it is not just one wrong study it is the other many studies that disprove global warming/climate change.
 
:lol:

You are a high schooler, I should have known by now from your 1 line remarks. Generally it's either the old or the young who spout crap without sourcing their material; the stereotype continues to live on with bright examples.

Ya know I wanted to take you seriously, but I can see you are a product of your parents, which is fine, but don't claim to have an indepenent opinion. You have absolutely no idea what lies outside your parents walls, I know I did not at 18, nor my friends, my siblings now at your age and their friends (who I talk to on a regular basis). Once you actually go and have to fend for yourself I might have some time for you, until then you are just a parrot.

Go to college, get educated, be successful, then act like you have a clue!

And I wanted to point something out, the EPA may not be around when you have kids. If conservatives and libertarians get their way there will be no room for such an organization within our government, but maybe you missed that being in class learning about all the things you are supposed to know before college. Good, because once you get there you can join the conversation. A majority of all that I learned about government agencies, their function and purpose, came after college (I did not major in political science but am debating going back for a BA in it). Politics is also ever changing and most of your comments come from the hip. As for a changing climate, I wonder how you can form an opinion on a topic in which I doubt you've read much at all. As stated, yet again, there was another independent study done by a climate doubter at Berkley (ya know, the University in Northern California?). But I suppose that must be bogus too.

I'm done addressing your questions because now that I have an idea where they are coming from; you're just a young ignorant troll, the interwebs are FULL of them.

Oh, and please link me to a study that completely disproves global warming/climate change, because now the burden of proof lies on you.
 
i have been said to be a man of few words 😀. your words dont hurt me. im definitely not a product of my parents i am so much different from them. but you wouldn't know that because you dont know me. for some reason you are personally attacking me which only shows your immaturity.

I have a clue. Ill stick to my reading, and you can stick to your college professors.

Where do you get that i am a textbook conservative/libertarian. I read pieces written by enlightenment philosophers and i find them very interesting and I like what they are saying. I feel governments should be in place to protect us and the EPA protects us from people polluting our drinking water and things like that. Overall i think the EPA is good but it needs some restructuring.

Oh, and please link me to a study that completely disproves global warming/climate change, because now the burden of proof lies on you.
Click to expand...
there are many studies out there that i am sure that you have seen on how the ice is growing on the south pole. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

again ill try to make this clear: i never said climate change/global warming doesnt exist. there is too much contradicting evidence out there to be sure one side is absolutely true or not

young ignorant troll
Click to expand...
- tasteful
 
That Fox News link didn't prove your point, not at all and not definitely. You said there are studies that disprove climate change, and you yourself said there are conflicting studies yet it's been proven somehow.

Ignorant troll is about the best I can come up with, because you come in, say few words with no backing and after that there is little contribution.

I can only hope you don't take ignorant as derogatory, although you are, because it means you don't know; it doesn't mean you are stupid, it doesn't mean you are universally uneducated, it means you are uninformed about a topic and I could only hope you would know that with your 4.1gpa.

Also, I never said you were a conservative/libertarian, I was talking about them as a whole. I cannot refer to you as any political stance, because I don't even know if you can vote, which further accentuates why I said you were ignorant. The troll part comes in for making statements you can't back up, leave no real information or is just plainly used in talking point rhetoric.

There is all kinds of data proving that our climate is changing. I've never used "global warming" once because it doesn't imply the correct understanding of the climate, only that something is warming which is inherently untrue.

We've gone through multiple ice ages and seen major changes across the globe from coastal flooding to la nina/el nino getting more and more erratic, to weather events that are getting more and more violent. The climate is going through some changes and although the research into what carbon is doing to the environment is still in discussion, the fact that changes are happening is aparent worldwide on all continents.

Again, "believe" what you want, but nearly everything I've read on this very subject talks about changes in our environment/climate, whether it's heating up or cooling down isn't the issue. The problem here is how much impact humans are having on the environment and that is leading just about all scientists from all disciplines to one general consensus that the climate has been impacted by humans occupying the earth. Plain and simple.

Also, I call trolls out on boards when I see them, and I got the feeling you were trolling me, thus I made the statement.

As for the "indoctrination" statement you made about professors, why exactly do you think most of the higher educated people in the world are liberal or more progressive minded? Why do you think they are our educators, our scientists, those people who work towards a greater good, those people who think the world can be a better place, those people who strive hard to help others (this is a general statement, not a specific one. There are plenty of conservative people in all these fields, they just generally aren't the majority.)?
 

To each their own. Here is a little tid bit I was looking for. It answers the question of intelligence for conservative vs more liberal view points, the point I was hitting home with retorting to your "indoctrinated by professors" statement. I'd like to add that most professors at major colleges are astute in their fields, thus why they teach.
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives

And like I stated, you come in, make some blanket statement with no support, then leave. Tis true of trolls, thus why I try to backup everything I state with a source of some reputation.

Be done, and 4 years from now maybe you can come in and add to the conversation rather than distracting from it.
 
mj I am impressed you didn't resort to a personal attack so well done.

Lockdown, I don't like the fact that you have taken a personal swipe at this young lad when it is pretty clear he is keen to learn and participate in the discussione here.

A decent education doesn't entitle anyone to belittle and bash other users.

Lets continue the debate in a peacefull manner guys.

the climate debate is a good one ... so I encourage you to post links and present your cases here.

:)
 
My formal apology.

It's the general reaction I get when dealing with some so young, it's happened on many forums elsewhere and thus my response.

I still do encourage siting where information is gathered from, and the only thing he has listed is over 2 years old. Since then more studies have been done, so I only hope the quality of information improves on the doubting side of thing. I don't deny there was some wrong doing at East Anglia, but that doesn't constitute the entirity of the argument and this is exactly what happened by multiple members, taking one study and attempting to discredit all other information on the subject. I find that disingenuous.
 
The lack of the decline of the suns energies over the past decade, since they play off each other, but they included all the other info, as far as dates go, but witheld the suns, shows somethings not right there, as they stated right up front how they balance each other out, then drop the suns input, as of 1950, but nothing lately, and its been fairly recent this has been obseved, as the early 70s , they were concerned with an ice age returning.
Too many mixed signals, not enough info, while they quote it, they dont include it all within the same timeframes, omitting info.
Somethings not right, tho I do admire Ars, just unconvincing.
If the suns been quiet lately, and remember those well respected scientists that insisted Japan wouldnt be habitable after WW2, well, I really doubt this
Its more scare than share
 

There's no such thing as "scientific consensus".

Scientific consensus once was:
There are four elements: earth, water, air, and fire.
The Earth is flat.
"Bad air" causes disease.


 


I think you're digging a wee bit too hard oldman.

What I gathered was they are pushing their predictions back a month+ because they're not accurate. They will still be providing data on the chances of hurricanes and predictions of hurricanes in the following year.

http://www.westword.com/2006-06-29/news/the-skeptic/full

William Gray doesn't believe in computer generated models, hes an old school meteorologist. BTW the other fellow mentioned in your article is only 26! Smart guy.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2011/dec2011/dec2011.pdf

heres the 2012 report its actually kinda interesting stuff, Id recommend it just to give the authors a chance to discuss why they are discontinuing.

Also I dont understand the David Attenburough link....... Its a TV show....... Not news or anything else. Its entertainment.
 
So the point here is: Computer models are producing useless predictions?

It never said that good old pouring over hundreds of thousands of pages of climate data by humans is any better at getting an accurate answer.

This should be a call to arms to get more accurate models. Not a dismissal of computer generated guesses.

The world wasn't built in a day, and the scientific model of the solar system was built in a day either.

I still dont entirely understand that polar bear thing. Or the fact that this has been "scrubbed" from the net.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom