Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Bjarki, Nov 22, 2009.
Source: ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails
Interpretation by the Wall Street Journal:
I do not agree with the way this information has been made public.. but since it's there.. it's worth posting cause it shows the data on which the global warming theory is based is far from undisputed even among scholars who advocate it towards the general public. Furthermore, it raises questions about the scientific integrity of these so called 'objective' researchers.
Well anyway, I thought it was nice to get an insight-view into the global warming-discussion, a fight that can get ugly :stare:.
From Bjarki (defending pedophiles):
Or would that be justifying pedophilia? Either way, if we want to trust in ad hominem arguments and quote-mining, then I would choose not to trust it when pointed out by someone who says "nowadays people are 'too uptight' about it" in regards to pedophilia. See what I did there?
Character assassination is easy.
I haven't been ab le to read thid thoroughly yet because I'm using my phone, however what I picked up pretty much further solidifies my stance on global warming. Its been going on for 11,000+ years, has been turned into a public scare tactic for political advancement and is otherwise out of our control.
I'll add more later when I can better allocate more time to reading the article in it entirety.
From icegoat63 (being with young girls):
Consider that along with:
A pattern is emerging. A meaningless pattern, because I'm quote-mining and misrepresenting things, but if you knew nothing of Bjarki and icegoat, and were predisposed to thinking global warming skeptics were pedophiles....
On the flip side, ignoring their statements entirely seems like a bad idea too. Especially if they're being confirmed as legit.
Which is why people should read the original set of documents in their entirety, or at least skim them. I understand they are not damning at all, but rather boring and technical on the main, but I haven't read them so I don't know.
If you do it first! :lick:
Thought so :lol:
Anyway, I didn't include an 'interpretation' for nothing..
Sure my knowledge of the discussions that take place between the advocates of global warming is limited.. and so is the knowledge of the general public. What these e-mails tell me is something I already knew before: that these scientists are 'stimulated' to correspond a certain message to the general public and in the proces leave out any details that speak against it.
Charts and figures are manipulated (which is common practice in any science) and those who disagree are called idiots (which is also common practice in academic circles), the only thing that bothers me is that these men feel that only they have the right to voice their opinion on the matter and that the public only needs to hear their version of global warming..
Against the background of so much pressure, and the felt importance of their mission, is it not reasonable to question their ability to remain objective?
To me it seems they are spending more time fixing 'inaccurate' date than searching for new theories to explain for them. If the past decade has learned anything it is that climate cannot be predicted and that the original global warming doom-scenarios are outdated and need serious readjustment to explain the recent cooling. And yet the only thing they do is create more panic by sending signals to the world predicting the disappearance of all ice on earth, water level rises of dozens of metres, weekly returning natural catastrophes, etc etc. Getting people to take action has become more important than presenting the public with a fair and balanced view.
They did the research! The media should not give equal time to people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about. This wishy-washy, "you have to present both sides" bullshit that's overtaken society is absurd. The media should be presenting the facts, and a good way to get those is to go to the experts. Who are the experts on the climate? Not Joe I-Have-An-Opinion, but climatologists. If someone who disagrees with them wants to be taken seriously, then they should take the measurements, run the experiments, do the calculations, and read the literature: they should become experts on the climate AKA climatologists.
Someone who studies and researches something knows more about it than someone who does not, and their opinion on the topic is thus far more likely to be correct. Nobody should just automatically defer to such authority without question, but since the media isn't about to give everyone a college educations worth of knowledge about the climate, they damn well should. Yeah, people would rather hear someone say whatever they already believe or want to believe, and we've been spoiled rotten with it to the point where we don't want to be taught anything if it might risk upsetting our delicate beliefs. So we say that we have to be told both sides of an issue, unless we're just listening to some shmuck know-nothing's opinion, and then balance doesn't matter because we can just dismiss him as the schmuck he is. So at the end of the day the schmucks end up shouting the loudest, so they shape the public discourse, and really, fuck them.
So my point is: fuck the schmucks and up with the experts on matters of fact. And this is coming from a schmuck!
There is nothing like 'the opinion' of 'the experts'. There are merely opinions and scientists. There's isn't just one opinion among climatologists, there are many, and yes, they are all equally scientific.
It's a lie that climatologists all agree on the subject and that the only skepticism comes from 911-'the-truth-is-out-there'-conspirancy believers..
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YouTube - Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails
Btw, also worth viewing, the leader of greenpeace talking about 'emotionalizing' scientific facts.
YouTube - Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
Separate names with a comma.