AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?

[Tonington]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

They lied and misrepresented data and had disagreeing scientists funding cut and in some cases fired them.

So, because you have ethical problems with what a few scientists said in private emails, you think that is evidence of fraud? There was no fraud...no matter how many investigations come to that conclusion, there will be folks like you, who are unrelenting in their denial.

Someone from Saskatchewan lied once, that doesn't mean I can refute the things you say simply becasue you're in Saskatchewan...do you know what a logical fallacy is?

 

[Tonington]

What makes you think that?

Observations? The same observations you're referring to?

 

[Skatchie]

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You don't even know who made those measurements. This is textbook denial.

No, this is textbook insanity on your part. Let me remind you that the definition for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result. These people were caught lying. It's not debatable. They're full of s***. I don't care who made the measurements because the system of manipulating the data and eliminating opposing view points has been established and there is no longer any credibility in the system.

Like I've said, thousand times, I didn't do the measurements but that doesn't mean that the people that are doing them are doing them in an objective manner. Like GWB tried to say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Until they admit their indiscretions and come at the situation from an objective inclusive way they will never have any credibility. And besides, who do you believe? There are countless websites with real scientists saying the exact opposite of what these scientists say. I chose to look at intent and agenda because I am not a scientist and can't decipher the science myself to conclude based on that. Looking at agenda it becomes quite obvious what's going on.

 

[Avro]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Tonn, it is becoming clear to me that you are also part of this vast conspiracy.

I will be hacking your emails.

 

[Avro]

Oh brother.:roll:

One of yours eh Captain.

 

[Tonington]

These people were caught lying.

Who was caught lying?

It's not debatable.

Of course it is.

I don't care who made the measurements because the system of manipulating the data and eliminating opposing view points has been established and there is no longer any credibility in the system.

Established by whom?

Like I've said, thousand times, I didn't do the measurements but that doesn't mean that the people that are doing them are doing them in an objective manner.

What is objective about what you're doing? You think you can ignore all climate science data, because some bloggers made a big deal about stolen emails. That's not objective at all...

And besides, who do you believe?

It's not who, it's what. If someone can show me observations, discuss the context of the theoretical frameworks, relate their observations to that framework, and come to conclusions that fit, then it's believable. It's not necessarily right, but it's believable. I actually do take measurements, I do make models at work, and I conduct experiments. We don't get to ignore data that we don't like. And we don't get to ignore data because someone is rude or an asshole.

There are countless websites with real scientists saying the exact opposite of what these scientists say.

Yeah, so? If you accept something someone says just because they are a scientist, that is called a logical fallacy. Specifically, it's called appeal to authority.

I chose to look at intent and agenda because I am not a scientist and can't decipher the science myself to conclude based on that.

I choose to look at the science...but that's just me. I can't deduce intent and agenda from reading a paper. Anyone who thinks they can, are insane.

Looking at agenda it becomes quite obvious what's going on.

Yes, it's easy to make that mistake when you get to define someones agenda for them...

 

[Skatchie]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

So, because you have ethical problems with what a few scientists said in private emails, you think that is evidence of fraud? There was no fraud...no matter how many investigations come to that conclusion, there will be folks like you, who are unrelenting in their denial.

Someone from Saskatchewan lied once, that doesn't mean I can refute the things you say simply becasue you're in Saskatchewan...do you know what a logical fallacy is?

The "investigations" weren't conducted fairly or with objectivity. I've seen the emails. They weren't "a few" scientists either. They were the people directly responsible for the whole GW scam and they clearly show the level of fraud in the system, as a whole. I don't care what panel or commission investigates it and concludes otherwise, it can't make up for my own eyes reading their emails. 9/11 had a commission too. So did JFK. So did Mulroney. It doesn't mean f*** all.

The fallacy in logic here, is yours. You are relying on outside, clearly subjective sources, to base your opinion on whereas I am going by my own assessment of the actual emails. I've taken Philosophy, and the whole fallacy thing is well and good. I'm not in court, and I don't care if my argument is proper or not. I am right. You are wrong and whether your argument would win in a structured debate has no bearing on whether it is true, in reality.

 

[Tonington]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Tonn, it is becoming clear to me that you are also part of this vast conspiracy.

I will be hacking your emails.

Stealing you mean. Bastard.

The "investigations" weren't conducted fairly or with objectivity.

Based on what? What is your criteria for fairness and objectivity?

I've seen the emails.

Ohhh. Is this what you call fair? Stealing someone's personal correspondance and taking things out of context? That is fair? That is objective? And this allows you to discount every single scientific finding that supports the type of work that the small sample of emails comes from?

Gotcha. Well, here in reality, that fails most tests for objectivity and fairness.

 

[Avro]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Stealing you mean. Bastard.

Hey, what's this picture with you and Castro about....I frickin knew it....commie.

 

[Skatchie]

If you chose to believe that they tell the truth there is likely nothing I can say to you to knock sense into you anyways. Like I've said, I read the emails. The emails came form whom they claimed to have come from. There was no denial of that. I conclude something from them that you aren't willing to. Good for you. You can pretend to rely on science all you want. What science? I've said a million times that you can find science to the contrary of the science you are peddling here as facts. I am not a scientist and have no way of determining which is right and which is lies. I suspect that you don't either.

I know that the Rothschilds paid for Al Gore's crap, movie and his stupid concert. I know that. It's not debatable. If you chose to believe that they have no shady intent with it that's on you. I happen to not trust that family. They are proven scum. I know that they are involved in National reserves. I know that they want a carbon tax paid into a global bank. They admitted so Copenhagen. It really comes down to politics. I don't believe that the science is fair and I don't believe that there is no intent to game us. You are welcome to believe otherwise. No amount of throwing data that I can't, and you can't either, confirm it's validity about can change my opinion and obviously it won't change yours either.

 

[Cliffy]

Why does this have to be an either or debate. There are obviously a number of factors involved in the climate changes we are experiencing. Why can't it be a combination of all of the above. That way, everybody gets to be right about their piece of the puzzle. There would be no need for animosity.

 

[Skatchie]

Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching

Based on what? What is your criteria for fairness and objectivity?

Ohhh. Is this what you call fair? Stealing someone's personal correspondance and taking things out of context? That is fair? That is objective? And this allows you to discount every single scientific finding that supports the type of work that the small sample of emails comes from?

Gotcha. Well, here in reality, that fails most tests for objectivity and fairness.

It was stolen from people in their own community that were so outraged by the fraud that they decided to do something about it. and the emails are actually quite clear, for the most part. There is no taking out of context when they flatly admit to fraudulent data, academic dishonesty and conspire to hinder the opposing view point.

And again, there is science on both sides of the debate. I am no judge of which is right. Would over 10,000 meteorologists claim GW is crap and sign a petition saying so if they didn't believe it. I'm not saying they're right but the thought you seem to have that all of the science is on your side of this debate is clearly false.

 

[Skatchie]

Why does this have to be an either or debate. There are obviously a number of factors involved in the climate changes we are experiencing. Why can't it be a combination of all of the above. That way, everybody gets to be right about their piece of the puzzle. There would be no need for animosity.

Good question. Ask David Suzuki or Al Gore. They'll tell you that they are 100% right and there is no need to debate it further because they've decided.

 

[Cliffy]

Good question. Ask David Suzuki or Al Gore. They'll tell you that they are 100% right and there is no need to debate it further because they've decided.

Yes, but so have you. That is why there is debate - there is no middle ground on the subject with any of you guys.

 

[Avro]

Good question. Ask David Suzuki or Al Gore. They'll tell you that they are 100% right and there is no need to debate it further because they've decided.

Don't listen to Gore or Suzuki.

They are not climatologists.

One is a douchebag politician and the other is a biologist....not experts and both have been shown to be hypocrits.

 

[Skatchie]

Yes, but so have you. That is why there is debate - there is no middle ground on the subject with any of you guys.

good point. I do not have middle ground. I am not a public figure or at the center of the debate though. It is not required of me. But ya, the other side has reasons to be there. I used to be one of them, only a year or two ago. I used to not think 9/11 was an inside job too. My issue with the people on the other side of both of those debates is that they tend to think that because they don't think it's true and perceive themselves to be in a majority because the people that have never even thought about it agree with them, mostly because the media tells them to, that they are right and have the right to characterize everybody that disagrees as flakes, and crazies. You can't debate with somebody when they throw tinfoil hat garbage out there right off the hop.

 

[Avro]

good point. I do not have middle ground. I am not a public figure or at the center of the debate though. It is not required of me. But ya, the other side has reasons to be there. I used to be one of them, only a year or two ago. I used to not think 9/11 was an inside job too. My issue with the people on the other side of both of those debates is that they tend to think that because they don't think it's true and perceive themselves to be in a majority because the people that have never even thought about it agree with them, mostly because the media tells them to, that they are right and have the right to characterize everybody that disagrees as flakes, and crazies. You can't debate with somebody when they throw tinfoil hat garbage out there right off the hop.

Hear that Captain, he's a truther.

One of yours eh?

 

[Cliffy]

good point. I do not have middle ground. I am not a public figure or at the center of the debate though. It is not required of me. But ya, the other side has reasons to be there. I used to be one of them, only a year or two ago. I used to not think 9/11 was an inside job too. My issue with the people on the other side of both of those debates is that they tend to think that because they don't think it's true and perceive themselves to be in a majority because the people that have never even thought about it agree with them, mostly because the media tells them to, that they are right and have the right to characterize everybody that disagrees as flakes, and crazies. You can't debate with somebody when they throw tinfoil hat garbage out there right off the hop.

You are right about the polarization of issues. They just become a merry go round that devolves into name calling and aggravation. I listen to both sides, but I know the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[Skatchie]

Hear that Captain, he's a truther.

One of yours eh?

See, case in point. Of course, Avro is so wise and all knowing that the idea of the cluster ph*ck of irregularities on 9/11 don't add up to more than just happenstance. There's no arguing with the all knowing.

You are right about the polarization of issues. They just become a merry go round that devolves into name calling and aggravation. I listen to both sides, but I know the truth lies somewhere in between.

The truth does lie somewhere in between. Precisely why I look at political agendas more than data because the data can and has said things on both sides. Of course, politics, is inexact as well. It's all we really have though.

 

[Avro]

See, case in point. Of course, Avro is so wise and all knowing that the idea of the cluster ph*ck of irregularities on 9/11 don't add up to more than just happenstance. There's no arguing with the all knowing.

Please, join the thread on this topic here.