Why are you mindlessly parroting this lie? No data was destroyed. A small part of a local copy of some data was deleted. The original data still exists. It is not gone. Why do deniers always insist on lying?
Even the IPCC is only 90% confident that the recent warming is caused by man (and they overstate *everything*). Is the IPCC in 10% denial?
There's a difference between "confidence level" and "being confident". Of course, denialist organization constantly lie about what the scientists are saying, so "90% confidence level" becomes "not really 100% confident that it's happening (look, there's doubt!)", and "not statistically significant to the 95% significance level" becomes "there has been no warming". Are "misinterpretations" like this that are parroted by people like you conscious lies, or just ignorance on part of denialist organizations?
Many Climate Scientists disagree with the IPCC. See Dr. Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr., and Richard Lindzen to name a few.
Ah yes, creationist Roy Spencer. Funny how the denialists and creationist groups overlap. Also, three people are not "many". Especially when the group consists of creationists and other lying douchebags.
And ultimately, your pathetic appeal to false authority fails because it doesn't help to be a skeptic if you can't produce the evidence. Lindzen keeps trying to counter AGW, but his research always fails to do so. Yet he continues to be a "skeptic". Because he has faith in AGW being false, not because he has any research to back it up. FAIL.
Which climate past are you referring to? The one of the completely discredited hockey stick whose margins of error swamped todays temperature records?
The claim that the hockey stick has been discredited is just another creationist, eh, denialist lie. Funny how denialists always seem to lie (see my comments about Spencer and Pielke, and the "confidence" crap).
Where I have a huge problem with those promoting "anthroprogenic global warming" is the complete and total denial that any other mechanism might be in play
What are you talking about? Papers discussing other mechanisms are being released all the time, including papers by skeptics like Richard Lindzen! You are the only one in denial here. You don't know shit about the actual science, so you make these insane assumptions. How the fuck can you claim that there is a denial about other possible mechanisms when other possible mechanisms are constantly being investigated?
I've read the primary documents, fuckwit. You haven't, apparently. I'm sorry if truth conflicts with your tightly-held ideals.
Yes, you have read the same old creationist bullshit propaganda. The context of the e-mail you are linking to is that they were being flooded with FOIA requests, and since they were just a small group of people, the people who DoSed them with FOIA requests would bring the science to a halt if they were allowed to keep up the flooding.
You may also want to take a look at the text, which clearly states that they were acting on the advice of the Information Commissioner. Furthermore, the CRU were cleared of all wrongdoings. If they had broken the law there would have been consequences, but several investigations have turned up nothing damning.
But hey, never mind facts, eh, creationist? Keep quoting e-mails you do not understand. Creationists always do quote-mining.
The default reason for something, when doing science, is as you say, "naturalistic processes".
I see. So you consider human beings to be supernatural. Not part of nature. I see now why you have such major problems with both AGW and the Theory of Evolution: You are deeply irrational, ignorant and superstitious.
Your argument is: "If anyone says that humans have done something, he's a creationist." LOL. News flash: Humans are observable, and naturalistic/part of the natural world.
But hey, keep misrepresenting the science and spreading your religious dogma!
The troll here is the asshole who misrepresents statements by scientists. The troll here is the asshole who keeps parroting the blatant lies about the hacked e-mails. Go fuck yourself, you anti-scientific asshole.
You just gave me a few links to right-wing political blogs with a history of lies and deception. They are useless. I don't give a shit about the politics behind all of this. Look at the science, not at right-wing political blogs that agree with your superstitious beliefs.
And your pathetic straw man is indeed worthy of a true creationist. Like creationists, you are misrepresenting the scientific position. You are saying that scientists are saying:
"After understanding all of the fossils that we know of, we cannot account for the gaps between the observed fossils, therefore, changes must be due to naturalistic processes."
Well, duh! That's what science deals with. Not your religious delusions about science.
What are you talking about? Decades start at 1995? No, I'm saying that someone picked 1995 because it is not significant at the 95% significance level, but if you measure from 1994, it is. Remember, longer periods gives more reliable data.
When I read this summary, I thought "hurray, the antagonistic, dogma-preaching 'scientists' were finally going to be told that debate IS allowed and questioning the data and methods IS allowed and you don't get to question the ethics of the guy with the opposing ideas just because he disagrees with you."
Hmm, this is exactly like reading yet another creationist rant. Sure you didn't post in the wrong story?
And that model holds up until the peer reviewed journals start rejecting alternate theories because they disagree with the AGW gospel.
Aha. So how is it that scientists like Richard Lindzen are still getting their papers published? I mean, he's an AGW skeptic, and has published several papers critical of AGW. Now, they turned out to be flawed in the end, but the point is, he got them published.
Doesn't really fit your insane little idiot denialist world, now does it?
When the baseline for your field isn't "here's the data, this is what I think it means as somebody who's spent a lot of time learning about it", and is instead "here's the data that fits with the theory our backers want us to prove, we justify it by saying there's a consensus, and kick blasphemers out of the consensus to keep it" then you're no longer science - you're religion.
Indeed. The former is how climate scientists operate. The latter is how denialists operate.
Proponents of AGW can be anything. What they all have in common is that they accept scientific facts. AGW denialists, on the other hand, deny scientific facts. Because of their ideology. Rather pathetic.
Stop fucking spewing the same tired old creationist/denialists talking points, already. All your drivel is answered ad skepticalscience.com. Read it and educate yourself instead of being a fucking ignorant moron.
There is no such thing as AGWs. "Global Warming" has now become "Climate Change".
That's bullshit. It has always been climate change, specifically global warming. Nothing has changed. Except the denialists/creationists have another talking point they can keep spewing to dishonestly mislead others.
It is only from 1995 to 2009 that the trend is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. Go to 1994, and it is. The reason he said 1995 was that the question was about 1995. So they just "happened" to select the year after it was significant at the 95% significance level. Gee, wonder why...
Oh my God! They are being brainwashed by education! Quick, bring out the Bibles!
All data points to AGW. The heavy selecting and massaging is being done by denialists.
No data sets have been lost.
No models have been fudged.
Your claims about peer review and publication are also complete nonsense. The fact is that skeptics are publishing as we speak. It's just that there are always some fundamental flaws that make them go back to the drawing board again. So fuck off with your crazy conspiracy bullshit. It's like listening to a creationist whine why his "God did it" report wasn't accepted for publication.
Then came the Climategate. I downloaded the zip file right away and started reading. I've spent countless hours reading the e-mails and the material in general. Based on them, I think that Mann and Jones should explain, why they hid the late 20th century decline of the tree ring proxies. I also think, that the way they fought against releasing data was not kosher. All in all, the e-mails cast doubt on the quality of the peer review process.
This is ridiculous. You claim to have beend doing your own research, and yet all you do is to parrot denialist lies about the CRU e-mails. The tree ring proxy thing has already been explained too, it's just that you are either too ignorant or too dishonest to care about that.
However, the biggest thing in the whole Climategate zip file is HARRY_READ_ME.txt. It took me 8 hours to read through the whole file. The comments by Ian Harris himself are unbeliavable. The quality of the data is poor, the algorithms are horrible and the poor man swims in this catastrophe for 2 years trying to make sense of it. Reading the file, I tried to find a single comment about quality control, error bars, or a happy end, where all the problems are solved. Instead I read how results of this mess was used in other peer reviewed articles. If you haven't read the file, please do.
Yeah, as if. You didn't read crap. All you are doing is to parrot denialist lies about the CRU e-mails. You haven't a single independent thought in that denialist/creationist brain of yours.
I'd love to send a PM to you and find out, how you think. It's pretty clear, that you care about science but so do I. We probably agree spot on about evolution, plate tectonics, health hazards of smoking etc. That's what makes it so hard for me to understand, how in the world you can support the depressingly low quality of climate science, that Climategate has revealed?
Climategate revealed nothing. All the "controversy" claims were based on quote-mining. A technique, by the way, which is also frequently used by creationists.
And like you are doing now, creationists are claiming that scientists are basically lying, and that there is a huge conspiracy to hide the truth.
Creationists point to several hoaxes like Piltdown Man to discredit the theory of evolution and evolutionary scientists even more.
Still, creationists usually don't have problems with other parts of science. Just the one that happens to disagree with their ideology.
I have read the e-mails that were supposedly showing "subversion of the peer-review process". Turns out that, like the rest of the manufactroversy that is "climategate", it was a bunch of right-wing quote-mining. AGW denialists are as dishonest as creationists.
You know what's like headbutting a brick wall? Trying to have a rational, reasonable debate with creationists/AGW denialists.
Slashdot Mirror
Why are you mindlessly parroting this lie? No data was destroyed. A small part of a local copy of some data was deleted. The original data still exists. It is not gone. Why do deniers always insist on lying?
Source, please.
There's a difference between "confidence level" and "being confident". Of course, denialist organization constantly lie about what the scientists are saying, so "90% confidence level" becomes "not really 100% confident that it's happening (look, there's doubt!)", and "not statistically significant to the 95% significance level" becomes "there has been no warming". Are "misinterpretations" like this that are parroted by people like you conscious lies, or just ignorance on part of denialist organizations?
Ah yes, creationist Roy Spencer. Funny how the denialists and creationist groups overlap. Also, three people are not "many". Especially when the group consists of creationists and other lying douchebags.
And ultimately, your pathetic appeal to false authority fails because it doesn't help to be a skeptic if you can't produce the evidence. Lindzen keeps trying to counter AGW, but his research always fails to do so. Yet he continues to be a "skeptic". Because he has faith in AGW being false, not because he has any research to back it up. FAIL.
The claim that the hockey stick has been discredited is just another creationist, eh, denialist lie. Funny how denialists always seem to lie (see my comments about Spencer and Pielke, and the "confidence" crap).
What are you talking about? Papers discussing other mechanisms are being released all the time, including papers by skeptics like Richard Lindzen! You are the only one in denial here. You don't know shit about the actual science, so you make these insane assumptions. How the fuck can you claim that there is a denial about other possible mechanisms when other possible mechanisms are constantly being investigated?
Are you fucking retarded? Fascist?!
No, you, as a matter of fact.
Yes, you have read the same old creationist bullshit propaganda. The context of the e-mail you are linking to is that they were being flooded with FOIA requests, and since they were just a small group of people, the people who DoSed them with FOIA requests would bring the science to a halt if they were allowed to keep up the flooding.
You may also want to take a look at the text, which clearly states that they were acting on the advice of the Information Commissioner. Furthermore, the CRU were cleared of all wrongdoings. If they had broken the law there would have been consequences, but several investigations have turned up nothing damning.
But hey, never mind facts, eh, creationist? Keep quoting e-mails you do not understand. Creationists always do quote-mining.
I see. So you consider human beings to be supernatural. Not part of nature. I see now why you have such major problems with both AGW and the Theory of Evolution: You are deeply irrational, ignorant and superstitious.
Your argument is: "If anyone says that humans have done something, he's a creationist." LOL. News flash: Humans are observable, and naturalistic/part of the natural world.
But hey, keep misrepresenting the science and spreading your religious dogma!
The troll here is the asshole who misrepresents statements by scientists. The troll here is the asshole who keeps parroting the blatant lies about the hacked e-mails. Go fuck yourself, you anti-scientific asshole.
Your vague comment merely parrots the same old denialist bullshit that's been refuted time and time again.
And your pathetic straw man is indeed worthy of a true creationist. Like creationists, you are misrepresenting the scientific position. You are saying that scientists are saying:
"After understanding all of the fossils that we know of, we cannot account for the gaps between the observed fossils, therefore, changes must be due to naturalistic processes."
Well, duh! That's what science deals with. Not your religious delusions about science.
What are you talking about? Decades start at 1995? No, I'm saying that someone picked 1995 because it is not significant at the 95% significance level, but if you measure from 1994, it is. Remember, longer periods gives more reliable data.
What on earth does your comment have to do with anything?
"Mounting research" you say, and then you point to a denialist anti-science blog. That's not science, buddy. It's religion.
Hmm, this is exactly like reading yet another creationist rant. Sure you didn't post in the wrong story?
Aha. So how is it that scientists like Richard Lindzen are still getting their papers published? I mean, he's an AGW skeptic, and has published several papers critical of AGW. Now, they turned out to be flawed in the end, but the point is, he got them published.
Doesn't really fit your insane little idiot denialist world, now does it?
Indeed. The former is how climate scientists operate. The latter is how denialists operate.
Proponents of AGW can be anything. What they all have in common is that they accept scientific facts. AGW denialists, on the other hand, deny scientific facts. Because of their ideology. Rather pathetic.
Stop fucking spewing the same tired old creationist/denialists talking points, already. All your drivel is answered ad skepticalscience.com. Read it and educate yourself instead of being a fucking ignorant moron.
You are an idiot. Climate is not about the temperature each year, but about the actual trend. Fuck off with your ignorance nonsense.
That's bullshit. It has always been climate change, specifically global warming. Nothing has changed. Except the denialists/creationists have another talking point they can keep spewing to dishonestly mislead others.
Fuck you, and fuck your retarded lies.
It is only from 1995 to 2009 that the trend is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. Go to 1994, and it is. The reason he said 1995 was that the question was about 1995. So they just "happened" to select the year after it was significant at the 95% significance level. Gee, wonder why...
All data points to AGW. The heavy selecting and massaging is being done by denialists.
No data sets have been lost.
No models have been fudged.
Your claims about peer review and publication are also complete nonsense. The fact is that skeptics are publishing as we speak. It's just that there are always some fundamental flaws that make them go back to the drawing board again. So fuck off with your crazy conspiracy bullshit. It's like listening to a creationist whine why his "God did it" report wasn't accepted for publication.
This is ridiculous. You claim to have beend doing your own research, and yet all you do is to parrot denialist lies about the CRU e-mails. The tree ring proxy thing has already been explained too, it's just that you are either too ignorant or too dishonest to care about that.
Yeah, as if. You didn't read crap. All you are doing is to parrot denialist lies about the CRU e-mails. You haven't a single independent thought in that denialist/creationist brain of yours.
Climategate revealed nothing. All the "controversy" claims were based on quote-mining. A technique, by the way, which is also frequently used by creationists.
And like you are doing now, creationists are claiming that scientists are basically lying, and that there is a huge conspiracy to hide the truth.
Creationists point to several hoaxes like Piltdown Man to discredit the theory of evolution and evolutionary scientists even more.
Still, creationists usually don't have problems with other parts of science. Just the one that happens to disagree with their ideology.
Hmm, I'm noticing a pattern here...
You know what's like headbutting a brick wall? Trying to have a rational, reasonable debate with creationists/AGW denialists.
Huh? Twitter is nothing like IRC. IRC is real-time chat. Twitter is microblogging (not real-time).