Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[PJABBER]

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.

Anyway, why don't you or another AGW Acolyte refute what he reports in the article? He isn't originating this information, he is just reporting it, so there must be some credible source that you can find that says he is not reporting this accurately. I am sure you have multiple references as to how these emails are falsified/distorted/inaccurate. Is there a refutation that the AGW Religion is based entirely on reading one tree's rings? 🙂

Please note that the Wiki article you reference has multiple disclaimers as to the validity of the posted information on this guy. Global Warming Acolytes have done their best to damage this guy because he has been so effective in presenting information that was buried in the name of your religion. What's next? The Inquisition?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

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.

I never said anecdotal evidence was valid as an argumentative tool...I stated that this particular anecdotal evidence was a reflection of reality.

Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century. Prove me wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Anyway, why don't you or another AGW Acolyte refute what he reports in the article? He isn't originating this information, he is just reporting it, so there must be some credible source that you can find that says he is not reporting this accurately. I am sure you have multiple references as to how these emails are falsified/distorted/inaccurate. Is there a refutation that the AGW Religion is based entirely on reading one tree's rings? 🙂

Please note that the Wiki article you reference has multiple disclaimers as to the validity of the posted information on this guy. Global Warming Acolytes have done their best to damage this guy because he has been so effective in presenting information that was buried in the name of your religion. What's next? The Inquisition?

Wait, so now you want ME to go research your article for you? Of course you do. This is standard PJABBER.

That quote comes directly from an article penned by Mr. Booker himself, genius.

 

[PJABBER]

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.

Hey smart guy! (snicker) Do you believe in abiogenesis? Please back your assertion with a live demonstration and a peer reviewed study.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said anecdotal evidence was valid as an argumentative tool...I stated that this particular anecdotal evidence was a reflection of reality.

Since the beginning of 2003, RSS has been dropping at 3.60C/century, UAH has been dropping at 2.84C/century, and GISS has been dropping at 0.96C/century. Prove me wrong.

No, I'm not talking about this with you. You're already cherry picking dates and like I said, you're not rational when it comes to this. How many times must I repeat myself?

You're about to be put on ignore. It's not like I'm just ignoring some guy with inconvenient information, you know as well as I do just how many times you've freaked out at me and I'm not really interested in adding yet another one.

 

[fskimospy]

Hey smart guy! (snicker) Do you believe in abiogenesis? Please back your assertion with a live demonstration and a peer reviewed study.

Abiogenesis may be true, it may not be true. We don't have enough information to tell. Regardless, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't tell you where a clock came from, it tells you how the clock works.

 

[PJABBER]

Abiogenesis may be true, it may not be true. We don't have enough information to tell. Regardless, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't tell you where a clock came from, it tells you how the clock works.

Where did that clock come from?

 

[fskimospy]

Where did that clock come from?

It could have come from a number of places, regardless its origin is irrelevant in the discussion of the validity of evolution.

 

[werepossum]

No, I'm not talking about this with you. You're already cherry picking dates and like I said, you're not rational when it comes to this. How many times must I repeat myself?

You're about to be put on ignore. It's not like I'm just ignoring some guy with inconvenient information, you know as well as I do just how many times you've freaked out at me and I'm not really interested in adding yet another one.

You do realize that the CRU has been not only cherry picking dates but also data, right?

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that the CRU has been not only cherry picking dates but also data, right?

If you look back in this thread at my original post in it you would see that I've already addressed this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No, I'm not talking about this with you. You're already cherry picking dates and like I said, you're not rational when it comes to this. How many times must I repeat myself?

You're about to be put on ignore. It's not like I'm just ignoring some guy with inconvenient information, you know as well as I do just how many times you've freaked out at me and I'm not really interested in adding yet another one.

My 'inconvenient ' information comes from one of the world's foremost particle physicists. Personal question...why do you even bother posting on this subject when you're so unwilling to discuss it?

 

[PJABBER]

It could have come from a number of places, regardless its origin is irrelevant in the discussion of the validity of evolution.

Creationism is not really about evolution, though it certainly finds fault with the evolutionary hypotheses as being incomplete. It is about the origin of life.

If life comes from "a number of places," what places might those be? Please demonstrate and provide a peer reviewed study or two for each "place."

 

[Darwin333]

Where did that clock come from?

Is it required to know who made the clock in order to study how the clock operates?

 

[PJABBER]

Is it required to know who made the clock in order to study how the clock operates?

Ah, but that is the mystery and the question. Without a clear answer as to origin, do the hypotheses hold?

If the origin is "divine" then cannot creation occur of more advanced entities?

The next questions are what is the purpose and why?

 

[fskimospy]

Creationism is not really about evolution, though it certainly finds fault with the evolutionary hypotheses as being incomplete. It is about the origin of life.

If life comes from "a number of places," what places might those be? Please demonstrate and provide a peer reviewed study or two for each "place."

You're not very good at this. You're trying to copy what you've seen others do to tear apart your walls of text, but it's evident from this post that you have never really understood the criticisms put against you. (this explains a lot)

Creationism as it is commonly defined describes life being created by God in its present form or very nearly so. So yes it most certainly has quite a bit to do with evolution.

I will not provide peer reviewed studies for the places that life may have come from because I have not made a positive declaration that I believe one to be accurate. In fact the entire point of my other posts was that I am uncertain as to where life came from. The only thing I would be giving you is a history lesson, and while it certainly seems like you could use one that's not my job.

 

[PJABBER]

You're not very good at this. You're trying to copy what you've seen others do to tear apart your walls of text, but it's evident from this post that you have never really understood the criticisms put against you. (this explains a lot)

Are your comments a criticism of me or a self-criticism?

I have not yet seen any of my thread postings torn apart. To the contrary, all I see is ad hominem attack in lieu of rational or documented rebuttal.

I say this sadly, as the doctrinaire are such boors and I keep hoping for something of substance.

 

[fskimospy]

Are your comments a criticism of me or a self-criticism?

I have not yet seen any of my thread postings torn apart. To the contrary, all I see is ad hominem attack in lieu of rational or documented rebuttal.

I say this sadly, as the doctrinaire are such boors and I keep hoping for something of substance.

Physician, heal thyself.

You gotta give something of substance before you get it. I'll give you my offer once again that I can show you how to evaluate a source so that you can tell if what you're posting is shit or not. It's not that credible people don't make many of the same points that you try to make in your walls of text, it's that you don't know how to find them. I think it's because you're so ideologically blinded that you think someone is credible simply because they agree with you.

 

[Corn]

I say this sadly, as the doctrinaire are such boors and I keep hoping for something of substance.

Surely you know you've come to the wrong place for that, right? Just look at who you are conversing with: Mr. One Word Rebuttal. Substance? Not likely!

 

[Corn]

Physician, heal thyself.

You gotta give something of substance before you get it. I'll give you my offer once again that I can show you how to evaluate a source so that you can tell if what you're posting is shit or not. It's not that credible people don't make many of the same points that you try to make in your walls of text, it's that you don't know how to find them. I think it's because you're so ideologically blinded that you think someone is credible simply because they agree with you.

Well, at least you are not without a sense of humor!

 

[fskimospy]

Surely you know you've come to the wrong place for that, right? Just look at who you are conversing with: Mr. One Word Rebuttal. Substance? Not likely!

Looks like someone is bothered that everyone ignored his previous stupid comment and decided to double down. Don't worry Corn, I still love you.

 

[fskimospy]

My 'inconvenient ' information comes from one of the world's foremost particle physicists. Personal question...why do you even bother posting on this subject when you're so unwilling to discuss it?

I'm very willing to discuss it and have done so on here many times in the past.

I'm just unwilling to discuss it with you.

 

[Corn]

Looks like someone is bothered that everyone ignored his previous stupid comment and decided to double down. Don't worry Corn, I still love you.

Wrong.

...or....

Fail.

You pick.

 

[Corn]

I'm very willing to discuss it and have done so on here many times in the past.

I'm just unwilling to discuss it with you.

Yet here you are, discussing with him why you won't discuss "it" with him. Sounds to me like you are afraid to be handed your ass. Running away and hiding is a good plan for you to engage in!

 

[Darwin333]

Ah, but that is the mystery and the question. Without a clear answer as to origin, do the hypotheses hold?

Do the mechanics of the clock somehow change after you learn who made it? Of course not, so while knowing who and why can reveal things about the clock that were previously unknown, the clock still works the same.

If the origin is "divine" then cannot creation occur of more advanced entities?

If the origin is "divine" would that "divine entity" not have the power to create beings that adapt and evolve to their environment? I dare say it would have been a pretty big snafu to create a world that is always evolving and life that does not.

Besides, the divine can not be proven nor dis-proven by science so it is really a moot point. In the realm of science an answer that can neither be proven or dis-proven is no answer at all.

The next questions are what is the purpose and why?

What is the purpose of evolution? That is easy. What is the purpose of life? WAY over my head.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet here you are, discussing with him why you won't discuss "it" with him. Sounds to me like you are afraid to be handed your ass. Running away and hiding is a good plan for you to engage in!

I already said I loved you, what more do you want?

You try so hard, and I really want it to work between us, but I'm afraid that it's a long way to Michigan. Remember though, when we look up at the stars at night, we both see the same stars.