Scientific Fraud

[IamInuit]

Cant see how anyone can deny climate change and specifically global warming. Perhaps its origin is natural but its quite evident when you consider the hard science that its speed of change is not normal.
Its change on peds. Historically these changes take thousands if not millions of years. We are talking about those changes now in decades.

In reality it really does not matter what the cause is. Its the effects we should be concerned about. If it can be shown which it has been that fossil fuels and industry as a whole is the steroid dealer then we should act on that even if we experience hardship. Whats the alternative?

[TitoFan]

Data manipulation doesn't help the cause, though. I agree that some changes you don't need numbers to observe. But someone's always got an agenda to push and unfortunately the important issues get embroiled in so much political bantering. I think it's safe to say no one welcomes drastic climate change, regardless of the cause.

[El Kabong]

In reality it really does not matter what the cause is.

YES! That is the crux of the argument!!!! If humans are responsible then that means that humans can manipulate the climate making it hotter or colder, ergo it's a fixable problem. If humans are NOT responsible for the changes then we're all on this ride together and regardless of what we do the climate will change, meaning there's absolutely NOTHING we can do to change it. It's one or the other it cannot be both. I believe that climate changes due to a lot of different reasons, but none of the factors include human activity....we're talking Milinkohovich cycles, orbital forcing, ocean currents, La Nina/El Nino cycles, volcanic activity, solar activity not whether or not you drive an suv.

[Andre]

In reality it really does not matter what the cause is.

YES! That is the crux of the argument!!!! If humans are responsible then that means that humans can manipulate the climate making it hotter or colder, ergo it's a fixable problem. If humans are NOT responsible for the changes then we're all on this ride together and regardless of what we do the climate will change, meaning there's absolutely NOTHING we can do to change it. It's one or the other it cannot be both. I believe that climate changes due to a lot of different reasons, but none of the factors include human activity....we're talking Milinkohovich cycles, orbital forcing, ocean currents, La Nina/El Nino cycles, volcanic activity, solar activity not whether or not you drive an suv.

Im with you fully. Its now a tax scam and a business model that reaps in dumb asses.
We would be better served to put the money towards the real issues that we have effects on; like ancient forest decimation at the costs of animal species and ocean floor raping for orange roughy etc that just ploughs up million year old cultures dragging massive cages over underwater mountains. Pollutions into dieing oceans etc.

[TitoFan]

ok.

So we are capable of hurting the planet.

[bcollins]

In reality it really does not matter what the cause is.

YES! That is the crux of the argument!!!! If humans are responsible then that means that humans can manipulate the climate making it hotter or colder, ergo it's a fixable problem. If humans are NOT responsible for the changes then we're all on this ride together and regardless of what we do the climate will change, meaning there's absolutely NOTHING we can do to change it. It's one or the other it cannot be both. I believe that climate changes due to a lot of different reasons, but none of the factors include human activity....we're talking Milinkohovich cycles, orbital forcing, ocean currents, La Nina/El Nino cycles, volcanic activity, solar activity not whether or not you drive an suv.

Wow. You really are clueless when it comes to logic, right? Your statement:

If humans are responsible then that means that humans can manipulate the climate making it hotter or colder, ergo it's a fixable problem.

A similar argument, in a different context. Let's set a scenario. Let's say for the sake of argument that we have an ice cube. We, as humans, can manipulate the climate relative to this ice cube, making it hotter or colder. Suppose we decide to make it hot. It melts and the resulting liquid evaporates, dispersing into the air.

Can you return the ice cube to its original state?

Of course not.

Similarly, your "ergo" sounds great, but is incorrect. Your logical fallacy is a non sequitur. Just because humans can affect the climate does in no way, shape, or form imply that we can undo what we have done.

Can you grow back a severed limb? Of course not. Your assertion is much like the rest of your arguments on this matter - entirely specious.

All you can do is post links to non-experts, or people with expert training in the field who have been shown to be incorrect by their peers. You have no understanding of the peer-review process and seemingly very little understanding of science in general, much less the level of expertise of the climate scientists who are telling you there is a problem.

Instead you posture, pose, and act as if your opinion on this subject has worth.

It doesn't.

[El Kabong]

Hey my side isn't "adjusting" (aka manipulating) data in order to support their argument...but you go right ahead.


Care to explain why your side is MANIPULATING DATA....oh I'm sorry I thought you guys were "Scientists" and that "manipulating data" would be a "No-No"....but the ends justify the means I suppose, so continue on Green Ranger, go save the Earth fuckwit

[bcollins]

Hey my side isn't "adjusting" (aka manipulating) data in order to support their argument...but you go right ahead.


Care to explain why your side is MANIPULATING DATA....oh I'm sorry I thought you guys were "Scientists" and that "manipulating data" would be a "No-No"....but the ends justify the means I suppose, so continue on Green Ranger, go save the Earth fuckwit

Jesus. Clutching vainly to something that was debunked a long time ago is quite sad.

‘Climategate’

Spew more propaganda. Go read some more blogs written by other people who also don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about, then present that as evidence to undo the work of real professionals. You aren't qualified to carry their jock strap. Talk to me once you have a Ph.D., the respect of your peers, and have any sort of clue what the hell you're talking about. Mindlessly regurgitating arguments that you are incapable of understanding does nothing to prove your point.

This is the true danger of the Information Age. Any mouthbreathing idiot can Google a few articles and think he or she possesses sufficient expertise to counter the opinions of people with *actual* expertise. You don't understand half of the terms you bandy about as "evidence." I mean come on - you really expect us to believe that you knew what "Milinkohovich cycles" or "orbital forcing" without the all-powerful Google search? Maybe a Wikipedia article? Okay. I'll believe that you know more about these than the scientists who coined the damn terms when you concede that I have an eleven foot penis and can teleport to the moon by wiggling my damn nose.

[SlimTrae]

‘Climategate’



that I can teleport to the moon by wiggling my damn nose.

Samantha Stevens can do it, and I got several episodes to prove my point B-money.

[SlimTrae]

BCollins hmm, you wouldn't happen to be the one and only Bootsy Collins would ya?

[El Kabong]

[/I]Can you grow back a severed limb? Of course not. Your assertion is much like the rest of your arguments on this matter - entirely specious.

Scientists Use Stem Cells To Grow Body Parts In Their Lab, Including Noses, Ears, And Tear Ducts

....eh, but I'm sure it's coming.

Be sure to buy your carbon offsets!

[El Kabong]

The most excellent part about Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't Al Gore saying "The Science is settled", it isn't the rampant data manipulation in order to arrive at the conclusion the "scientists" want to arrive at, it isn't Roger Revelle apologizing for his studies on CO2 which laid the foundation for those like Al Gore to take advantage of, it's that those involved like bcollins here for example aren't able to handle ANY criticism at all regardless of who it is from...could be a politician who sees this Anthropogenic Global Warming as a political tool wielded by those who wish to create drastic political and economic changes, changes which without the imminent threat of death and destruction are WILDLY unpopular, or it could be another scientist or group of scientists that have studied this very subject and have differing hypotheses regarding Climate Change. Yes these people are merely written off by the Green Army as kooks, wackos, nutjobs, and bought and paid for by "Big Oil" or "Big Coal", or the most ironic "they are bad scientists" (as opposed to those who adjust their data to toe the line for Anthropogenic Global Warming).


And well, IF humans can't recreate the ice cube bcollins, then why fucking bother worrying about Anthropogenic Global Warming if nothing humans do can fix it Why so upset if Anthropogenic Global Warming only advances and never retreats? Why work to fix, control, mitigate, it? You've admitted that your work merely counts down the days until all of humanity and the life on this Earth ceases to exist....it does nothing more than that....if of course you are truthful in how you disagree with my take on this.

[SlimTrae]

Question: Do these scientists come from different backgrounds or similar? I've heard a little of Climatology & meteorology. Do either of these fields back this Anthropogenic Global warming or deny?

Are there better fields to learn from global warming than those two?

And last: Would President Reagan's help with the Montreal Protocol treaty be something akin to acknowledging in some ways- where man hinders nature- he can help it? Or was the president's rationale for such a treaty not relative to a claim that: man's impact on a natural process has little impact.
Personally I think Global warming & freezing is an inevitable process with or without man- but can man help it or hinder it? That seems to be the question- and Kabong has pointed out that there are those who are manipulating data to get their point across. I apologize if I have taken your words out of context. Break it down for me, please.

[Andre]

Question: Do these scientists come from different backgrounds or similar? I've heard a little of Climatology & meteorology. Do either of these fields back this Anthropogenic Global warming or deny?

Are there better fields to learn from global warming than those two?

And last: Would President Reagan's help with the Montreal Protocol treaty be something akin to acknowledging in some ways- where man hinders nature- he can help it? Or was the president's rationale for such a treaty not relative to a claim that: man's impact on a natural process has little impact.
Personally I think Global warming & freezing is an inevitable process with or without man- but can man help it or hinder it? That seems to be the question- and Kabong has pointed out that there are those who are manipulating data to get their point across. I apologize if I have taken your words out of context. Break it down for me, please.

They are ignoring you .Ill break it down for you>

[bcollins]

The most excellent part about Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't Al Gore saying "The Science is settled", it isn't the rampant data manipulation in order to arrive at the conclusion the "scientists" want to arrive at, it isn't Roger Revelle apologizing for his studies on CO2 which laid the foundation for those like Al Gore to take advantage of, it's that those involved like bcollins here for example aren't able to handle ANY criticism at all regardless of who it is from...could be a politician who sees this Anthropogenic Global Warming as a political tool wielded by those who wish to create drastic political and economic changes, changes which without the imminent threat of death and destruction are WILDLY unpopular, or it could be another scientist or group of scientists that have studied this very subject and have differing hypotheses regarding Climate Change.

You really don't have a clue. THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION IS PRECISELY THAT ALL ARGUMENTS MUST STAND UP TO THE MOST RIGOROUS OF SCRUTINY.

The problem I have with your bullshit arguments is that barely any of them are from a source with any expertise to even understand the terminology involved! The few that do come from scientists in the field have been thoroughly dismissed by the rest of the community. That's precisely the point - the scientific community itself is MUCH better equipped at sniffing out bullshit than you, or the bloggers you adore, or any media source, or the voices in your head that tell you that you know more about this than GODDAMN PROFESSIONALS.