Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[fskimospy]

I'm not the one throwing my grandmother under the bus.

Glad to see you're still just as unable to read for comprehension as ever.

Remember: It's everyone's fault but yours that you get made fun of and insulted.

 

[PJABBER]

Glad to see you're still just as unable to read for comprehension as ever.

Remember: It's everyone's fault but yours that you get made fun of and insulted.

🙂 I can laugh because I know I am right. You can't because even you doubt what you are saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

 

[fskimospy]

🙂 I can laugh because I know I am right. You can't because even you doubt what you are saying.

But of course you are.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We've been over this before.

If I quote my grandma who says that elves live under her garden you don't actually need to go dig it up and provide a point by point refutation, and when she offers her ideas on botany I am not going to take her seriously. Likewise if someone who believes in intelligent design attempts to analyze scientific data I'm not going to take them seriously as they have already demonstrated an inability to do so.

I don't think your grandmother authored the post...so please make an effort to refute the points made.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think your grandmother authored the post...so please make an effort to refute the points made.

She sure didn't, all my grandparents are long dead. Like I said, we've been over this before.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

She sure didn't, all my grandparents are long dead. Like I said, we've been over this before.

Sigh...so yell 'creationist' and then go run and hide. Gotcha. :\

 

[Corn]

Attack the source rather than the content...come on...you can do better than that.

No, he can't.

 

[PJABBER]

She sure didn't, all my grandparents are long dead. Like I said, we've been over this before.

Yet you still throw her under the bus!

BTW, I see AGW is kicking in big time on the left coast, too. I'd keep my eyes out for migrating polar bears -

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2374422.html

Sacramento Valley temperatures Monday drop to a record 27 degrees.

That's the coldest for Dec. 7 since the National Weather Service began tracking temperatures in Sacramento in 1849.

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh...so yell 'creationist' and then go run and hide. Gotcha. :\

Look man, let me break it down.

The source making proclamations on science is one that is incompetent. It is not necessary or even desirable to engage a source like that because it only legitimizes stupidity.

You have shown time and again that you cannot get past your personal problem with me to discuss things rationally, so there's no point in discussing this with you either.

Clear?

 

[Jaskalas]

Nope, I would just think twice about quoting creationists in an argument about science. Then again, being able to evaluate a source has never really been your strong suit now has it?

That's funny you should mention creationists. Given your religious following on MMGW.

 

[fskimospy]

That's funny you should mention creationists. Given your religious following on MMGW.

It's funnier than you might think, global warming deniers and creationists share quite a few of the same tactics, one specifically being an attempt to label science as religion.

'Evolution is your religion', and 'AGW is your religion' are two very similar attempts to delegitimize science to which you are ideologically opposed.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you still throw her under the bus!

BTW, I see AGW is kicking in big time on the left coast, too. I'd keep my eyes out for migrating polar bears -

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2374422.html

Sacramento Valley temperatures Monday drop to a record 27 degrees.

That's the coldest for Dec. 7 since the National Weather Service began tracking temperatures in Sacramento in 1849.

/facepalm

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Look man, let me break it down.

The source making proclamations on science is one that is incompetent. It is not necessary or even desirable to engage a source like that because it only legitimizes stupidity.

You have shown time and again that you cannot get past your personal problem with me to discuss things rationally, so there's no point in discussing this with you either.

Clear?

Seriously?!? You're the one avoiding rational discussion...not me. Wow.

 

[Munky]

We've been over this before.

If I quote my grandma who says that elves live under her garden you don't actually need to go dig it up and provide a point by point refutation, and when she offers her ideas on botany I am not going to take her seriously. Likewise if someone who believes in intelligent design attempts to analyze scientific data I'm not going to take them seriously as they have already demonstrated an inability to do so.

Nonsense. What does someone's religious belief have to do with ability to analyze scientific data? And more importantly, how does that sweep under the rug the leaked info, such as these AGW scientists writing "let's delete these emails so they can't be summoned by a FOI request", or the very notion of signing an international treaty based on findings of a computer model, which itself is based on incomplete and fudged data?

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously?!? You're the one avoiding rational discussion...not me. Wow.

Uhmmm, that was exactly the point of my post. Neither you nor PJABBER merit it.

PJABBER is most likely just some guy trolling these boards for fun, and while you're a bright guy otherwise, for whatever reason you have a big problem discussing things with me. It's best to save us both the trouble.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's funnier than you might think, global warming deniers and creationists share quite a few of the same tactics, one specifically being an attempt to label science as religion.

'Evolution is your religion', and 'AGW is your religion' are two very similar attempts to delegitimize science to which you are ideologically opposed.

You make it sound as if only creationists oppose you.

Please refer to Munky's post as to why yours is a religious belief and not ground in science.

 

[fskimospy]

Nonsense. What does someone's religious belief have to do with ability to analyze scientific data? And more importantly, how does that sweep under the rug the leaked info, such as these AGW scientists writing "let's delete these emails so they can't be summoned by a FOI request", or the very notion of signing an international treaty based on findings of a computer model, which itself is based on incomplete and fudged data?

What does someone's religious belief have to do with the ability to analyze scientific data? I'm not really sure how you can even ask that. The scientific data tells us that evolution is a fact. Creationists deny this in service of their religious beliefs. Therefore they have showed an inability to draw requisite conclusions from scientific data, to 'analyze' it if you will.

As for sweeping things under the rug, please go find where I have made that contention, you appear to have me confused with someone else.

 

[fskimospy]

You make it sound as if only creationists oppose you.

Please refer to Munky's post as to why yours is a religious belief and not ground in science.

I most certainly do not. PJABBER's latest wall of text was a scientific analysis penned by a creationist which is what I was directly referring to.

Nonsense indeed.

 

[Munky]

What does someone's religious belief have to do with the ability to analyze scientific data? I'm not really sure how you can even ask that. The scientific data tells us that evolution is a fact. Creationists deny this in service of their religious beliefs. Therefore they have showed an inability to draw requisite conclusions from scientific data, to 'analyze' it if you will.

As for sweeping things under the rug, please go find where I have made that contention, you appear to have me confused with someone else.

Which aspects of evolution are they denying? Microevolution? Macroevolution? Or the very notion that all life began spontaneously from simple bacteria? Those are all different aspects of evolution, some with more scientific data to back them up than others, and not all of these are necessarily refuted by creationism or intelligent design. Just because someone happens to believe in creationism doesn't mean the person is incapable of critical thinking, especially when it comes to analyzing not just numbers, but human behavior.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

/facepalm

Anecdotal evidence that happens to reflect reality...global temperatures have been significantly cooling over the past several years.

As someone once said to me..."/facepalm indeed"

 

[PJABBER]

Look man, let me break it down.

The source making proclamations on science is one that is incompetent. It is not necessary or even desirable to engage a source like that because it only legitimizes stupidity.

You have shown time and again that you cannot get past your personal problem with me to discuss things rationally, so there's no point in discussing this with you either.

Clear?

Christopher Booker, whose "science" you refer to, isn't a scientist. He is a very well established journalist and commentator that recently has focused on AGW. He is a meticulous investigator and is expert at synthesis, which is something you yourself fail at, as we have discussed elsewhere.

To say that no journalist or commentator can report investigative or analytical findings unless they hold an advanced degree in a particular subject and have published peer reviewed scientific studies is certainly an indictment of the entire working press.

Think of him as a more erudite version of John Stossel here in the US.

Feel free to peremptorily challenge everyone who writes about anything, you have that right. Just don't expect that you will be making much of contribution here.

Christopher Booker - About the Author

As a noted commentator on the political, social and psychological history of our time, Christopher Booker has in recent years, through his weekly Sunday Telegraph column, become the most conspicuous 'global warming sceptic' in the British press. He has based his view on exhaustive research into the scientific evidence for and against the theory of 'man-made climate change'. His professional interest in this issue grew out of research for his previous book "Scared The Death", co-written with Dr. Richard North, a study of the 'scare phenomenon' which has been such a prominent feature of Western life in recent decades. Booker's other recent books have included The Seven Basic Plots, a best-selling analysis of why we tell stories which has established itself as a standard text (published by Continuum). He has been an author and journalist for nearly 50 years, and was the founding editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye.

 

[fskimospy]

Which aspects of evolution are they denying? Microevolution? Macroevolution? Or the very notion that all life began spontaneously from simple bacteria? Those are all different aspects of evolution, some with more scientific data to back them up than others, and not all of these are necessarily refuted by creationism or intelligent design. Just because someone happens to believe in creationism doesn't mean the person is incapable of critical thinking, especially when it comes to analyzing not just numbers, but human behavior.

Evolution does not differentiate between micro and macro evolution, and abiogenesis is not a part of the theory of evolution. I didn't say that a person who was a creationist is incapable of critical thinking, but they have shown a willingness to subordinate objective scientific fact to dogma, therefore their analysis is not to be trusted.

 

[fskimospy]

Christopher Booker, whose "science" you refer to, isn't a scientist. He is a very well established journalist and commentator that recently has focused on AGW. He is a meticulous investigator and is expert at synthesis, which is something you yourself fail at, as we have discussed elsewhere.

To say that no journalist or commentator can report investigative or analytical findings unless they hold an advanced degree in a particular subject and have published peer reviewed scientific studies is certainly an indictment of the entire working press.

Think of him as a more erudite version of John Stossel here in the US.

Feel free to peremptorily challenge everyone who writes about anything, you have that right. Just don't expect that you will be making much of contribution here.

Christopher Booker - About the Author

As a noted commentator on the political, social and psychological history of our time, Christopher Booker has in recent years, through his weekly Sunday Telegraph column, become the most conspicuous 'global warming sceptic' in the British press. He has based his view on exhaustive research into the scientific evidence for and against the theory of 'man-made climate change'. His professional interest in this issue grew out of research for his previous book "Scared The Death", co-written with Dr. Richard North, a study of the 'scare phenomenon' which has been such a prominent feature of Western life in recent decades. Booker's other recent books have included The Seven Basic Plots, a best-selling analysis of why we tell stories which has established itself as a standard text (published by Continuum). He has been an author and journalist for nearly 50 years, and was the founding editor of the satirical magazine Private Eye.

Nowhere did I claim that he must hold an advanced degree or have published a peer reviewed paper. Your posts are fun to read because the same inability to comprehend what you read in the walls of text you post is evident in your flailing attempts to understand the posts that others make.

He's such a meticulous investigator and expert at synthesis that his analysis of evolution concludes that 'Darwinians rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions'. Thanks wiki! We should definitely take what this guy says seriously, that's some pretty expert synthesis right there! An erudite individual for certain.

 

[fskimospy]

Anecdotal evidence that happens to reflect reality...global temperatures have been significantly cooling over the past several years.

As someone once said to me..."/facepalm indeed"

No they haven't, and even if the anecdotal evidence did happen to reflect reality it wouldn't be any more valid as an argumentative tool.

 

[PJABBER]

Uhmmm, that was exactly the point of my post. Neither you nor PJABBER merit it.

PJABBER is most likely just some guy trolling these boards for fun, and while you're a bright guy otherwise, for whatever reason you have a big problem discussing things with me. It's best to save us both the trouble.

I'm not trollin' but I am having fun!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xDO6CH7yX4