Science isn't supposed to be a popularity content. People of differing views are supposed to be able to present their theories without the kind of hostile rhetoric we've been seeing. Everyone should be allowed to present their evidence and let the community decide (over the next decade, not overnight!) what makes sense.
Guess what, they already did that. The science overwhelmingly showed (and shows) AGW.
The constant flinging of insults by the pro and anti Global Warming crowd does nothing to further science.
But climate-gate wasn't about self-published papers it was about a conspiracy.
Except there was no conspiracy, of course.
My point was that it is circular logic, and therefore faulty, to claim that if there were no "for Side X" peer reviewed papers published in the major journals then that is proof that there was no conspiracy to prevent the publication of articles "for Side X" in those journals. That was my main point.
There is no conspiracy. That's a fact. If there was, scientists like Richard Lindzen wouldn't be getting their research published.
Was there a conspiracy? I don't have a clue.
There was none. Several skeptical scientists are actively getting their work published. Of course, they have failed to demonstrate that AGW is false, but they are still being published. Weird conspiracy. One would have to be a deeply ignorant and disgustingly dishonest individual to claim that there is one.
To them, if it gets too hot, it's global warming. If it gets too cold, it's global warming. They've set up the debate so that they can't lose, and they ignore any and all criticism of their data.
What data? Who are you referring to? Scientists?!
The real problem is that these same people use the guilt to try to shame people into accepting higher taxes and other government programs.
Ah, there's the real reason behind your denialism: You don't like the facts, therefore the facts must be wrong!
Look, why don't you educate yourself instead of spending your time parroting denialist talking points? Your ice age comment was completely retarded, and when that was pointed out to you, you started talking about something else. Get a grip!
Believe that we are the only thing impacting the climate is fucking stupid.
No one believes that (or at least no one who participates in any public debates), so I guess that makes someone else fucking stupid. Or at least deeply ignorant (or dishonest?).
I never understood why it's so hard to find other people who don't subscribe to one extreme or the other when it comes to climate change.
I have yet to come across anyone who thinks that humans are the only thing having an impact. And if they exist, they certainly don't take part in the public debate. So that's how much your blatant misrepresentation of the "debate" is worth.
I see two "extremes" that get a lot of time on the air: The ones who accept AGW, and the ones who outright deny any human influence on the global climate. The two sides are science (not extreme), and anti-science (extreme).
It's because we're not the ones yelling at the top of our lungs
The science speaks for itself. AGW is real. Are you in favor of teaching both flat earth and round earth in geology classes too?
And the fact is that the people who believe that humans are the only thing affecting the climate are not at all yelling. I haven't seen them anywhere! So what on earth are you talking about?
And the e-mails don't really reveal much. All the claims about a "scandal" are based on quote-mining. You claim to be an independent thinker, but I can tell from your comment that you are just mindlessly accepting the denialist lies about the e-mails.
Jones doesn't have all the raw data, but the raw data still exists where he licensed it from. So that data is lost is just another lie from the denialist propaganda machinery.
As for the readme file, you'll only find something bad if you do creationist-like quote-mining.
In fact a great deal of the lies and misinformation come from the marketing departments of the various institutions and pressure groups pushing the whole AGW scare.
That's besides the point. Just because you disagree with someone who uses the facts to promote their agenda doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
In this respect they behave much like the religious institutions of old, willing as they are to excommunicate anyone who doesn't hold to their orthodoxy.
Nonsense. The religious fundies here are the denialists. At least the AGW crazies are basing their claims on scientific facts, rather than willfully rejecting scientific facts.
The AGW movement is an inquisition and contrary views are not welcome, regardless of the merits of their case.
I'm not sure what you mean by "AGW movement". Do you mean political pressure groups or scientists? Because skeptical scientists are actively publishing in reputable scientific journal. Their problem is that their research is unable to show that AGW is wrong.
Your claim that the "AGW movement is an inquisition" is like saying that the "gravity movement is an inquisition" or the "round earth movement is an inquisition". If you deny gravity or claim that earth is flat, you are not going to be taken seriously. And you only have yourself to blame for that for rejecting known scientific facts.
It would have been extremely interesting to have heard or read an inquiry conclusion that was truly independent.
You would NOT tell everyone that doesn't believe the Earth's crust was disintigrating to STFU and tell everyone that the debate on the solution to potholes was over.
Nice straw man there. The fact is that the AGW side has all the facts and research, while the denialists have nothing. You are creating a straw man because you desperately want to reject the scientific facts due to your political ideology.
The journals offer one level of acceptance: The validity of your research.
You clearly think any wild claim should be published just to keep a "balance", but science journals deal with science. You won't see flat earthers getting their flat earth nonsense published in reputable scientific journals. Oh no! A conspiracy against flat earthers!
why weren't papers from the "other side" published in mainstream "peer-reviwed" journals? Well, as it happens, and as the "leaked" emails revealed beyond question (there are admissions), there was a concerted effort to keep those papers OUT of the mainstream "peer-reviewed" journals.
Sorry, but you are confused. Skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are indeed actively getting their work published in peer-reviewed journals. So that's strike one for your conspiracy theory.
The mails that talked about keeping something out of journals were referring to poor research that didn't stand up to even a superficial look by someone with knowledge. It is a good thing to keep poor science out of science journals. So that's trike two for your conspiracy theory.
You have to keep in mind the context: the (very small and insular) group that was doing that research pretty much had a lock on peer-review of ANY research being submitted in that field.
No, there are thousands of active climate scientists around the world.
For example, it is documented that one time, when Nature was unsure whether to accept a paper that was critical of AGW for review, it consulted some of its reviewers in the field...
So Nature asked the experts in the field? Wow, how terrible! What paper was that, by the way?
As an additional barrier, it was well-known by that point that governments were willing to spend a lot of money on AGW research, so companies and institutions were much more highly motivated to support people who were on the AGW side of the debate.
You seem to fail at understanding how science works. If you fund research on something, you can only fund the actual research. You can't decide what the results of the research is. So in other words, if a lot of money is spent on climate change research, then that will only strengthen the knowledge of that area. It doesn't matter who is on "which side", because the results of the research speak for themselves. And they speak loudly and clearly in support og AGW. Strike three for your conspiracy theory.
Authors who were critical of AGW were forced to turn to other publishers, such as Energy and Environment.
Correction: Authors whose research was too crappy to appear in real scientific journals were forced to "publish" through kook rags.
But it sounds reasonable to the public, who don't know the details.
It seems that you do not know the details. You are assuming that because research that seems to support your ideology is not gaining consensus, there must be a conspiracy. What is happening in reality is that the proper science shows AGW, and those who don't accept that can't produce the proper science to support their position.
And Phil Plait's biases on the matter are pretty blatant.
Oh no! He's biased against quackery and kooks!
And note also that while Phil is an astronomer, he is no more a climatologist than many of the engineers and scientists who have been supporting the "other" side.
Unlike those, he isn't willfully rejecting well known facts.
I only bring that up because so many "warmists" have objected to evidence presented by other scientists and engineers because "he is not a climatologist" or "he is not a scientist".
The difference is that Phil's position is supported by actual science. The denialist side is only supported by kooks and conspiracy theorists.
The fact of the matter is that for the majority of the issues, one need not be a climatologist or even a scientist to understand them.
Really! So how come the actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing, while the deniali
Dude, by definition, if there is a conspiracy going on among "peers", then there will not be any dissenting papers that are "legitimatized" by accepting them in peer reviewed journals.
If there is a conspiracy, how come skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are actively getting their research published in these peer-reviewed journal?
The answer is of course that there is no conspiracy. But those whose political ideology is threatened by the facts will stop at nothing to hide those facts.
He said no such thing. Latif was quote-mined. It's a well-known creationist tactic. How predictable. In fact, he predicted exactly that in the exact same speech. Yes, the denialists quote-mined the very speech where he pointed out that what he just said would most likely be quote-mined! Amazing, isn't it? The sheer dishonesty of the denialist crowd is just getting worse and worse.
Michael Mann is distancing himself away from the hockey stick.
Really? When did he do that? Sources, please!
Real Scientists would predict Global Weirding or Climate Strange
What do you mean by that?
not this tabloid info-deficient Global Warming or Climate Change
It is an observed fact that the climate is changing - getting warmer. Why would it not be named after what the observed facts are?
And the comments in the emails and the comments in the SOURCE CODE admit the truth. But you fan boys can't bother to review those yourselves can ya? "Hide the Decline!"
My gut says, "yes, obviously we are making some effect" and my brain says "The earth is a pretty big place capable of bigger adjustments than we realize".
Rather, your gut says both of these. You have no more of a factual basis for the latter than for the former. Or actually, there is an overwhelming about of evidence for human effect on the climate.
So when you claim that the second is what your brain says, you must either be willfully rejecting the facts, or you have been spoonfed with misinformation (and didn't bother to educate yourself about the real facts).
Perhaps only to me, the obvious is to study more
What do you think the scientists that are being attacked and vilified right now are doing? They are doing research!
We don't HAVE to believe all of what the global warming crowd is saying
Your comment might not have been off-topic, but it was certainly missing the point.
The fact is that the AGW denialist crowd is using the exact same tactics as creationists today and the tobaccoists a few decades ago. In fact, many of the same people are involved in the core of each of these groups. The cores overlap to a great extent. And normal people parrot their carefully constructed lies and misinformation.
Why do deniers never "follow the money" when they link to denialist sites? You just linked to a site funded by the oil industry. Good job with your double standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess what, they already did that. The science overwhelmingly showed (and shows) AGW.
Science furthers science. Science clearly shows AGW.
Except there was no conspiracy, of course.
There is no conspiracy. That's a fact. If there was, scientists like Richard Lindzen wouldn't be getting their research published.
There was none. Several skeptical scientists are actively getting their work published. Of course, they have failed to demonstrate that AGW is false, but they are still being published. Weird conspiracy. One would have to be a deeply ignorant and disgustingly dishonest individual to claim that there is one.
What data? Who are you referring to? Scientists?!
Ah, there's the real reason behind your denialism: You don't like the facts, therefore the facts must be wrong!
You need to stop quoting research you are clueless about what actually means. Typical denialist crap.
Look, why don't you educate yourself instead of spending your time parroting denialist talking points? Your ice age comment was completely retarded, and when that was pointed out to you, you started talking about something else. Get a grip!
Oh no, Obama! How terrible!
No one believes that (or at least no one who participates in any public debates), so I guess that makes someone else fucking stupid. Or at least deeply ignorant (or dishonest?).
I have yet to come across anyone who thinks that humans are the only thing having an impact. And if they exist, they certainly don't take part in the public debate. So that's how much your blatant misrepresentation of the "debate" is worth.
I see two "extremes" that get a lot of time on the air: The ones who accept AGW, and the ones who outright deny any human influence on the global climate. The two sides are science (not extreme), and anti-science (extreme).
The science speaks for itself. AGW is real. Are you in favor of teaching both flat earth and round earth in geology classes too?
And the fact is that the people who believe that humans are the only thing affecting the climate are not at all yelling. I haven't seen them anywhere! So what on earth are you talking about?
Great. That old creationist, I mean, denialist canard. Educate yourself.
Yet another creatiodenialist canard. Educate yourself.
You are obviously deeply ignorant. Why don't you educate yourself instead of mindlessly parroting denialist talking points?
Yes, you are a denialist if you are saying that the science is wrong. Because the science is in fact very solid indeed.
And the e-mails don't really reveal much. All the claims about a "scandal" are based on quote-mining. You claim to be an independent thinker, but I can tell from your comment that you are just mindlessly accepting the denialist lies about the e-mails.
As for the readme file, you'll only find something bad if you do creationist-like quote-mining.
That's besides the point. Just because you disagree with someone who uses the facts to promote their agenda doesn't mean that the facts are wrong.
Nonsense. The religious fundies here are the denialists. At least the AGW crazies are basing their claims on scientific facts, rather than willfully rejecting scientific facts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "AGW movement". Do you mean political pressure groups or scientists? Because skeptical scientists are actively publishing in reputable scientific journal. Their problem is that their research is unable to show that AGW is wrong.
Your claim that the "AGW movement is an inquisition" is like saying that the "gravity movement is an inquisition" or the "round earth movement is an inquisition". If you deny gravity or claim that earth is flat, you are not going to be taken seriously. And you only have yourself to blame for that for rejecting known scientific facts.
The conclusion would have been the same.
Nice straw man there. The fact is that the AGW side has all the facts and research, while the denialists have nothing. You are creating a straw man because you desperately want to reject the scientific facts due to your political ideology.
You are assuming that they cannot follow up on their mission, which is a fallacy.
You clearly think any wild claim should be published just to keep a "balance", but science journals deal with science. You won't see flat earthers getting their flat earth nonsense published in reputable scientific journals. Oh no! A conspiracy against flat earthers!
Sorry, but you are confused. Skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are indeed actively getting their work published in peer-reviewed journals. So that's strike one for your conspiracy theory.
The mails that talked about keeping something out of journals were referring to poor research that didn't stand up to even a superficial look by someone with knowledge. It is a good thing to keep poor science out of science journals. So that's trike two for your conspiracy theory.
No, there are thousands of active climate scientists around the world.
So Nature asked the experts in the field? Wow, how terrible! What paper was that, by the way?
You seem to fail at understanding how science works. If you fund research on something, you can only fund the actual research. You can't decide what the results of the research is. So in other words, if a lot of money is spent on climate change research, then that will only strengthen the knowledge of that area. It doesn't matter who is on "which side", because the results of the research speak for themselves. And they speak loudly and clearly in support og AGW. Strike three for your conspiracy theory.
Correction: Authors whose research was too crappy to appear in real scientific journals were forced to "publish" through kook rags.
It seems that you do not know the details. You are assuming that because research that seems to support your ideology is not gaining consensus, there must be a conspiracy. What is happening in reality is that the proper science shows AGW, and those who don't accept that can't produce the proper science to support their position.
Oh no! He's biased against quackery and kooks!
Unlike those, he isn't willfully rejecting well known facts.
The difference is that Phil's position is supported by actual science. The denialist side is only supported by kooks and conspiracy theorists.
Really! So how come the actual experts in the field all have research that shows the same thing, while the deniali
If there is a conspiracy, how come skeptical scientists like Richard Lindzen are actively getting their research published in these peer-reviewed journal?
The answer is of course that there is no conspiracy. But those whose political ideology is threatened by the facts will stop at nothing to hide those facts.
He said no such thing. Latif was quote-mined. It's a well-known creationist tactic. How predictable. In fact, he predicted exactly that in the exact same speech. Yes, the denialists quote-mined the very speech where he pointed out that what he just said would most likely be quote-mined! Amazing, isn't it? The sheer dishonesty of the denialist crowd is just getting worse and worse.
Really? When did he do that? Sources, please!
What do you mean by that?
It is an observed fact that the climate is changing - getting warmer. Why would it not be named after what the observed facts are?
Oh dear. Yet another sheep mindlessly parroting the "hide the decline" nonsense. It does not mean what you think it means. Fail.
You didn't answer the question. How come?
But as always, facts fall on deaf ears when dealing with denialists.
Rather, your gut says both of these. You have no more of a factual basis for the latter than for the former. Or actually, there is an overwhelming about of evidence for human effect on the climate.
So when you claim that the second is what your brain says, you must either be willfully rejecting the facts, or you have been spoonfed with misinformation (and didn't bother to educate yourself about the real facts).
What do you think the scientists that are being attacked and vilified right now are doing? They are doing research!
Who is "the global warming crowd"? Scientists?
The fact is that the AGW denialist crowd is using the exact same tactics as creationists today and the tobaccoists a few decades ago. In fact, many of the same people are involved in the core of each of these groups. The cores overlap to a great extent. And normal people parrot their carefully constructed lies and misinformation.
Why do deniers never "follow the money" when they link to denialist sites? You just linked to a site funded by the oil industry. Good job with your double standards.
It isn't at odds with that. It's just that they are being pragmatic about it. Firefox won't run on slow phones anyway.