Slashdot Mirror
Climategate's Final Days
The Bad Astronomer writes "Climategate may be on its way out. An investigatory committee at Pennsylvania State University has formally cleared climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of any scientific misconduct. Mann was central in the so-called Climategate scandal, where illegally leaked emails were purported to indicate examples of scientists trying to cover up any lack of global warming in their data. This finding by the committee (PDF) is another in a series of independent investigations that have all concluded that no misconduct has occurred."
No, I meant global warming nuts, i.e. most of the other responses on this thread.
Yours at least posted a link to interesting information to corroborate your opinion, instead of merely condemning me as a pagan unbeliever.
I'll read the report, it looks interesting enough.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The conservatives will not trust anyone smart enough to disprove their stupidity.
It's weird how people think they can add to a debate with experts while being absolute non-experts themselves.
Well I think it's weird how one group of experts (man causes global warming) will label another group of experts (global warming is natural) as "idiots" and "deniers" and other childish retorts. The first group doesn't even allow the second group to publish papers. How... tyrannical and immature.
I also think it's weird that the planet has grown 1/2 a degree cooler since the mid-90s, and somehow this is used to justify warming. (Or else simply ignored and the data fictionalized into an upward slope, as the Penn State researcher did.) What kind of "expertism" is that? Seems to me the word "expert" should be replaced with "biased", and therefore not to be trusted.
And finally, I think it's weird that average people are not allowed to have an opinion (according to you). Has our society devolved into Feudalism again, where only the Nobility are allowed to form an opinion & set policy, while the educated Commoners/middle class is ignored as "too stupid to understand"? Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that We the People cannot be trusted to decide our own future?
Hope that is not so.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
What has "peer supported" got to do with anything? Is that a guarantee of infallibility? Do you take the weight of paper on any given topic as in some way indicating the truth of the matter? I wonder how much the entire published research on stomach ulcers being caused by diet weighed? I wonder (speculating here) how much the entire peer reviewed research into Dark Energy will weigh when we're finally done with it (if we ever are)?
The interesting thing from my point of view looking at this whole sorry affair, is that none of the "independent reviews" were actually independent. Indeed, none of them even bothered to speak to the people who were the main beneficiaries of the Climate Scientist's bile (such as Steve McIntyre). As I commented earlier on another story, post-modern science is an exercise in politics and marketing. The major journals are not exempt from "peer pressure" either, are they?
I'm wondering who among us is actually in denial here.
Wow. Look, I don't support the oil industry first of all. I think we should move away from oil. Know what else? We should source all of our oil from the USA until we can wean off of it. Why buy foreign oil when there is oil right here? Know what else? I understand that the economy runs on oil. So I don't support the oil industry, nor am I employed or paid by them. However I AM dependant on them for the time being because my car does not run on hopes and dreams. I COULD lease the Honda Clarity but I don't have that kind of money. The biggest problem people have with AGW is the conclusion the morons in power reach for dealing with it. Let's "Tax them in to oblivion" which really means "let's fuck up the American Economy and make it a third world country". Support alternative energy (especially Nuclear) but don't start some witch hunt on CO2.
Considering the small affect that CO2 has on climate, co
Here we go again:
What are you, Ronald Reagan or something?
after fighting strawmen for a while, you make a bold unsubstantiated claim. It is certainly NOT agreed that CO2 has only small effect, nor is that supported by any science. Rather, there is strong geo-historical evidence to suggest CO2 level has very strong correlation with surface and atmospheric temperatures, as well as credible theories explain causality from concentration to temperature.
I already talked about the correlation, but you have confused the issue by leaving out the part about CO2 concentrations always occurring after the temperature rise.
As far as CO2, I think you are confused about the idea of greenhouse gases in general. Anthropogenic concentrations of CO2 amount to about 3 - 4% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor). To me, that's small. And if you have anything that refutes it, please let me know.
And hey, for good measure you attach this to goofball conspiracy theory. I think I need to attach your arguments as poster-child for kinds of bullshit climate change deniers use.
And for this kind of unfounded attack, you get a +5 insightful mod. Stunning.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You need to stop quoting research you are clueless about what actually means. Typical denialist crap.
Clever signature text goes here.