It’s disingenuous to pretend like you and other conservatives have long accepted the fact that global warming exists, and that you’ve only been innocently wondering why it exists. You think people in this country have no memory?

It’s only recently that conservatives have finally, after years of foot-dragging, evidence-ignoring and science-demonizing, admitted that global warming is real. And now you’re shocked, shocked! that anyone would have the audacity to accuse you of not believing in global warming.

Just because you’ve finally seen the futility of disputing the fact of global warming, and have casually and cynically moved on to a more specific aspect of the theory to not believe in (whatever it takes to let corporations pollute as they please!), we’re all supposed to treat you like honest, constructive participants in solving this problem?

Sorry. You’re too late to salvage your reputation. The years of cynically trying to discredit those honest scientists who were only trying to alert the world to a potential threat have exposed your true motivations: to defend corporations prerogative to endanger humanity for a bit of profit. Either that, or you’re just so ideologically opposed to the idea of government that you’re willing to let disaster befall the earth rather than admit that some problems are so big they require a collective, centralized response. Either way, whatever new detail of the global warming problem you choose to deny next, we ain’t buying it. What was it Bush said “Fool me once…”

That was hilarious, Pinky. Do you do other schticks as well?

…Oh wait. You were serious.

It must be hard, hoisting the flag and carrying on with the colossal trainwreck that CRU has turned into. Destruction of original data, the data on hand not working in any sense of the phrase, emails that discuss manipulation and even deletion of data that doesn’t fit the preconceived theory… this is Piltdown Man all over again.

No, wait; it’s WORSE than Piltdown Man. Piltdown Man was a hoax done for little more than to tweak anthropologists’ noses. There’s money and power involved in AGW.

But do keep the faith, by all means. Keep rah-rah’ing your buddy Al Gore as he jets off in his private aircraft, and insisting that the U.S. be the sacrificial lamb on the altar of your religion. The books on bad science can always use another example.

In closing, let me ask you: how do you account for the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age? Or do you bother to at all?

Until then, I remain a complete part of a balanced breakfast.

It’s disingenuous to pretend like you and other conservatives have long accepted the fact that global warming exists, and that you’ve only been innocently wondering why it exists.

You know what else is disingenuous? Claiming that that is our argument.

Read Ms. McKinley’s post again, jackass. Then come back when you’re less stupid.

“The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes..”

Except, you know, its not. Its growing and the ice is increasing.

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-09 17:47:36

Wow, you really beat the crap out of that strawman, didn’t you?

I don’t know what “conservatives” you think you listened to (whereas, it’s pretty clear that IN FACT, you listened to none at all), but I have personally experienced from the “right” side (and I mean that in BOTH senses of the word) everything from outright denial of global warming (a SMALL minority) to acceptance of AGW, agreeing that it may even be at a substantial level, but disagreeing that the result will be the parade of horribles that you and Manbearpig tout. See, Pinky, we “conservatives” are much more . . . nuanced than you fundamentalist AGW true believers. We also pay a lot more attention to silly little things like the scientific method, and how closely the AGW “scientists” adhered to same.

We’ve blown OUR credibility? I’m suprised lightning didn’t strike your keyboard when you typed that. You are quite the caricature of a reasoning person, ain’tcha???

“and have casually and cynically moved on to a more specific aspect of the theory to not believe in”

Kind of like going from: GLOBAL COOLING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!11111!!!!1! (gimme your money)

To: GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!11111!!!!1! (gimme your money)

People didn’t believe this crap even under the assumption that everything the “scientists” did wasn’t rigged and phony. Now that the East Anglia School of Fine Arts and Drama has literally made science impossible by destroying the data, you have to be a total idiot to thing an SUV is going to turn the world into a blazing inferno of doom…and the only way to stop it is by giving Al Gore your money. I hope you realize how laughable and pathetic this all is for the sake of your dignity as a human being.

Good job pinky, trying to enlighten the dreadfully stupid so well.

Kudos.

Good job pinky, trying to enlighten the dreadfully stupid so well.
Posted by Jack Schite 2009-12-09 22:46:22

You are siding with a liar and an idiot. The two of you make a fine pair of dolts!

Good job pinky, trying to enlighten the dreadfully stupid so well.
Kudos.
Posted by Jack Schite
2009-12-09 22:46:22

Careful Jack Shit….talking to yourself is not healthy.

You are siding with a liar and an idiot. The two of you make a fine pair of dolts!
Posted by TheBaud
2009-12-09 22:51:34

You mean two nuts in a sack. Maybe we should bury them in the ground and let them burn in the “millions of degrees” that is inside the Earth, right Al?

Like Ms. McKinley I am also old enough to remember when school textbooks were preaching that we were entering the next Great Ice Age and that by the time I was 30 (I am 32 now) Canada and most of the Norther U.S. would be under 12 or so feet of glacier ice.
So assuming global warming is true then I guess we can thank it for glaciers not forcing anybody living north of Nebraska to move south.
To Pinky and his alt JS. I also have never fully denied that the climate was warming. (At least until around 2005 when the temperature data proved we had been cooling since around 1998.) I HAVE however been very skeptical that it was MAN MADE. After all if the Earth’s climate warming was all a result of man made CO2 then the polar ice caps on MARS wouldn’t have also been loosing surface area at the SAME RATE as those on Earth.
As for manipulation of the facts… It was a long time ago that I notice a lot of that was dishonest. If you dig into a lot of the “then and now” comparison pictures of glaciers and polar ice regions used to “prove the loss of the ice” you will find that a lot of the “then” were from some date in deep winter, while the “now” are often from the middle of summer. Like there isn’t any natural difference based on the season.
Last, but certainly not least, I have always thought that the need of liberals and enviro-freaks to blame every little environmental problem on man to be rather egotistical and arrogant. That right there means we need to question everything that spews from their mouths.

“The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes …”

This has been proved to be UNTRUE. Like most of the crap Gore has peddled in support of his totalitarian agenda.

It’s disingenuous to pretend like you and other conservatives have long accepted the fact that global warming exists, and that you’ve only been innocently wondering why it exists. You think people in this country have no memory?

As usual, a liberal making it up as he/she goes. The majority of Conservatives believe that global warming has happened, just that it is mostly natural. You Climahysterics still have yet to prove that it is Mankind’s release of greenhouse gasses that is causing the current warming trend. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Heck, I will take to task those who completely claim that no warming has happened in the latter half of the 20th Century, the 20th Century in full, and since the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s real. And it is primarily natural. Grow up, Pinky. You too, Jack. Offer an adult argument.

Grow up, Pinky. You too, Jack. Offer an adult argument.
Posted by William Teach
2009-12-10 08:12:10

You might as well ask a snake to ride a bike.

Posted by William Teach
2009-12-10 08:12:10

Teach, Jack is a poor example of a drive by troll. Pinky got on a thread the other day lecturing us with some liberal drivel in a post where he claimed to “pitty” us conservatives.

Nixon would recommend using your time to do something more constructive than trying to debate these two ass munches, such as watching paint dry.

Pinky= huron_stupidity?

Pinky= huron_stupidity?

Does it truly matter? Leftards are incapable of independent thought anyway, so it might just as well be.

Children, behave.

Science is not based on politics or emotion. Neither should honest dissent.

Wowee!

You know it’s a good post when you put it up casually one day, and the next the whole thread is conservatives FREAKING OUT! (With the requisite insults that I only expect from you guys by now.)

Some really sad, desperate arguments here, guys. A couple of you actually claim that conservatives never doubted global warming was happening. Wow. Just, wow. I don’t know if you know you’re lying, or if reprogramming one’s brain on a monthly basis is such a common requisite to keeping up with the shifting doctrines and arguments of conservatism, that it’s like second nature (What WMDs? We’re invading Iraq to bring democracy! That was always the reason!)

And I love the selective science you practice. How do you know the Earth is even warming? Because climate scientists agree that it is. You accept that (now, thankfully). But when those same climate scientists agree that the cause is man-made, you call them liars! On what personal scientific expertise do you base your ability to tell scientists with vastly more education and experience than you what they got right and what they got wrong?

The emails! Ah, the emails! So, some right-wing organization with deep pockets (probably funded by the same mega-industries that might have to cut back on polluting if climate scientists are believed) hires a hacker to illegally break into a certain scientific organization’s mainframe and steal tens of thousands of private emails between colleagues. Then, a bunch of wanna-be big shot young Republicans spend days poring over these messages, and finally manage to come up with a handful of quotes which, when taken out of context and presented to people unfamiliar with the scientific processes and jargon, may give the impression of some vague intent to deceive. The smoking gun!

Grow up, guys. The non-paranoid-scienctists-are-evil segment of the world (that’s pretty much everyone but you) admits some of the wording is unfortunately in some of these emails, but they do nothing–nothing–to discredit the mountains of evidence for man-made global warming. All the emails really prove is how desperate you people are for any reason not to believe it.

One more thing, and this is, to me, the craziest thing about your conspiracy theory: conspiracies need a motive. Okay? If you’re going to have us believe that the vast majority of scientists all over the world, despite decades of their lives devoted to the search for truth, have all banded together, from Switzerland to New Zealand to America, to fabricate and advance a knowingly false theory, spending thousands of man-hours and hundreds of millions of dollars on bogus research, putting their livelihoods and credibilities on the line, not to mention terrifying the known world, you’re going to have to come up with a better motivation than “so they can feel arrogant,” or “so Al Gore can take your money.” Al Gore’s got money. And scientists probably already feel arrogant; they’re smarter than most people. And there are countless other ways to make money and fuel one’s ego that don’t involve such mind-boggling amounts of organization.

Even if a cover-up of this magnitude were even possible, you’d have to come up with a reason for it so massive and particular that it would justify the gargantuan risk, time, and effort it would take to recruit every scientist to the most expensive and lengthy deception the world has ever seen . I’m talking, like, sci-fi stuff. Like, maybe aliens have made a deal with the world’s scientists to colonize our planet, but the CO2 levels need to be at a certain point in order for them to thrive here, so…you get the picture. As ridiculous as that sounds, it’s more logical than the motivations you people have come up with.

A couple of you actually claim that conservatives never doubted global warming was happening.

Are you Liberals still trying to conflate global warming (which has happened many, many times over the last 4 billion years, right along with global cooling) with anthropogenic global warming? That may work on glassy-eyed uncritical college kids, but adults know there is a difference. There is no evidence that anthropogenic global warming has ever taken place. We now know that the data used to create such a scam was cherry-picked and massaged, and the reports fabricated. You have nothing to say of importance, and nothing to add to the conversation.

Even if a cover-up of this magnitude were even possible, you’d have to come up with a reason for it so massive and particular

Money and power.

that it would justify the gargantuan risk, time, and effort it would take to recruit every scientist to the most expensive and lengthy deception the world has ever seen

Every scientist? Not even close. There were many honest scientists who based their conclusions on the faked and manipulated CRU data.

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:25:08

what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(With the requisite insults that I only expect from you guys by now.)

Ah, so the “new” troll admits he’s been here before. And when you act like an idiot, you really should expect to be treated like one.

Even if a cover-up of this magnitude were even possible, you’d have to come up with a reason for it so massive and particular that it would justify the gargantuan risk, time, and effort it would take to recruit every scientist to the most expensive and lengthy deception the world has ever seen .
Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:25:08

MONEY and POWER as in BILLIONS of govt grants and carbon credits, as well as the ability to advise and influence governments about what policies can be implemented to SOLVE the (non-existant)problem. How’s that for a down to earth reason why someone would perpetuate a hoax of this magnitude?

Doesn’t that bother you guys? Doesn’t it bother you that you have to believe in this massive, global conspiracy of unprecedented complexity, but you haven’t been able to come up with an even halfway adequate motivation to justify it?

I’ve even heard some say that it’s a way for liberals to get more power in Washington. As if twenty years ago, a handful of liberal congresspeople wanted to increase their share of seats in the House, and the easiest way to do that (obviously), would be to call climate scientists around the world and see if they’d start laying the groundwork for a giant fraudulent environmental crisis, in the hopes that two decades later, the majority of earth’s residents would be deceived enough to allow us to enact cap and trade! Devious!–though extraordinarily unnecessary.

The problem y’all have, as I see it, is you simply don’t want the government to act on global warming. No matter what. Which leaves you with three options:

1. Just say, “Screw the world, let it burn. I’d rather humans go extinct than see the government violate my political doctrines.”

2. Believe climate scientists are wrong, and you, somehow, know more than them about climate science. As crazy as it sounds, I know people who think this. A testament to the powers of self-delusion.

3. Believe scientists are lying. At least you’re sane enough to know that a climate scientist would probably beat you in a climate science quiz, but it’s still a matter of ideological principle that you not believe him, so, ipso facto, he’s lying! This is only slightly less crazy than #2, since, as I’ve already said, it requires believing an exponentially large set of supporting beliefs about conspiracies, shadow governments, black helicopters and the like.

Really, if one wants to remain a denier of global warming (anthropogenic global warming, thank you Professor CavalierX), there are no good options.

So, the best I’ve heard is “Money and Power”. Not many specifics on who gets this money or what kind of power. bthewolf made an attempt:

“MONEY and POWER as in BILLIONS of govt grants and carbon credits, as well as the ability to advise and influence governments about what policies can be implemented to SOLVE the (non-existant)problem.”

You mean billions of government grants that would spread out across hundreds of organizations, local governments, businesses, workers and their families? That’s a pretty generous and socially-minded evil mastermind you’ve imagined there. And power to advise governments on environmental policy? “Today I shall be President Obama’s Advisor on Environmental Affairs, tomorrow Ruler of the World!

Honestly, I think it would be easier and cheaper to run for President of the United States and win the election, than it would to mount the thirty year worldwide conspiracy you suggest to become his environmental advisor.

Yes, money and power are great motivators–for most common endeavors. But you still do not appreciate the magnitude of the hoax you’ve imagined. It quite literally would be easier to get elected President of the United States than it would be to pull this hoax off. So you’re still gonna have to come up with something much more fantastic.

Put your money where your fingers are, Pinky: Prove that the current warming period is caused by Mankind, rather than by Nature, as has been happening for billions of years. Go ahead. Pony, up, there, buddy.

Doesn’t that bother you guys? Doesn’t it bother you that you have to believe in this massive, global conspiracy of unprecedented complexity, but you haven’t been able to come up with an even halfway adequate motivation to justify it?

We don’t have to “believe” in anything. We have actual, physical proof of “climate scientists” colluding and conspiring together to FAKE the evidence for man-made global warming.

We won. You lost. Deal with it.

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:56:04

What bother’s me is ‘scientisits’ WHO KNOWINGLY FALSIFIED DATA to further an agenda. There is no MMGW/AGW, never has been. For the better part of 10 years I’ve said so and NO ONE could provide proof that

1) the world was heating to unknown levels
2) what the average world temp is supposed to be
3) Why if the world has been hotter before warming was now bad
4) that any of the warming was man’s fault
5) the same science that can’t predict tomorrows weather can be relied on to make accurate predictions 10 or 100 years into the future

Care to provide that proof?

Perhaps Pinky would be so kind as to tell us what the temperature of Earth is supposed to be, and how he arrived at that answer.

(Hint: the answer is NOT “millions of degrees.”)

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:25:08

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:56:04

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 14:07:29

Wow, Pinky decides to QUADRUPLE down on “stupid.” Nicely played, Pinkster – you’ve managed to demonstrate, beyond peradventure, (i) your complete lack of reading comprehension skills, (ii) your rather total lack of logic and ratiocination ability, and, last but not least, (iii) you ability to perfect the art of the poorly deployed and illogical “appeal to authority.” Pinky, Samuel Langhorne Clemens once wrote, “Keep your mouth shut, and let people believe you stupid; don’t open it and remove all doubt.” Words to the wise.

And no, a “conspiracy” among these vaunted “climate scientists” is not at all hard to image, particularly when one listens to their public pronouncements, then takes a careful look at their “models” and their manipulated data. They are, for the most part, “green” believers – which, of course, has nothing to do with true environmentalism, but has EVERYTHING to do with (i) hating modernity, (ii) hating modern Western culture, and (iii) wanting the mechanisms of government to control everything from how much and what we can drive to what kinds of light bulbs we can use, to what we can eat, to what kind or toilet paper we can use. They are “true believers” of their soi-disant “modern” religion of AGW, and the need to return our society to pre-industrial standards of living, so OF COURSE they all sing from the same hymnal, just as the Church required all people to do, pre-Reformation.

Do try to keep up, Pinky. It’s very difficult to even TRY to have a rational discussion with a halfwit like you, who can’t even grasp the most simple aspects of the discussion. But, thanks for playing. Not. As airfr8er said, your posts are so jaw-droppingly stupid they probably temporarily reduced the IQ of anyone who managed to wade their way through them. Do, please, just fuck the hell off and let the grownups discuss matters, will you?

I don’t have to prove it, William, I’m not a scientist. Scientists have to prove it, and they have. You have chosen to believe they’re lying.

I know this may sound repulsive to you, but I trust scientists and I trust science. I believe they are intelligent people who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of truth in their field, and thank God for them. Our whole world is based upon the work of scientists doing things and knowing things that we don’t understand. From everything to communication to travel to medicine, they make modern society possible, and teach us more about our universe than humans have ever known in the past.

They also have a lot of integrity. No other professional field has such a strict and thorough system for checking and double checking the work of its members. When so many other areas and organizations are poisoned by politics and presumption, science holds as its most sacred mission to be objective. And before you contest that, ask yourself who’s the more likely partisan in this debate: a scientist, or the guy who visits “RightWingNews.com” every day?

So when the objective scientific community comes to a general consensus about something, I’m going to damn well listen to them. I can’t prove that global warming is man-made, any more than you can prove the theory of relativity. But I’m smart enough to know that a community of highly intelligent climate scientists is more trustworthy on this issue than Glenn Beck.

“The non-paranoid-scienctists-are-evil segment of the world (that’s pretty much everyone but you) admits some of the wording is unfortunately in some of these emails, but they do nothing–nothing–to discredit the mountains of evidence for man-made global warming.”
Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 13:25:08

So your entire response to the e-mails in question is that they are unfortunately worded? So “Hide the Decline” is just an unfortunate phrase??? And you follow this with your devastating argument that “nuh-uh they don’t discredit nothin’.” Well, sorry, but if that is the extent of your argument then don’t expect to be taken seriously. If you believe that the “mountains of evidence” out there is legit, why is it that these scientist’s refuse to debate the science behind their hypothesis? Why did they destroy the original, untampered data? Why does Gore flat out refuse any debate on the issue? And here you are, Pinky. You come in here and declare conservatives to be a bunch of neanderthals that simply refuse to believe in GW (data – untampered with data – has shown cooling in the last 10 years) and you offer ZERO proof of any of your assertions. You are a typical representative of the church of Al Gore – you want to shout down the opposition while offering nothing but “because I said so” in return.

As far as the money and power motivators go, yes I can see why you blow that off. After all, it’s not like anyone in history has ever been motivated by money or power… *eyeroll*

“I know this may sound repulsive to you, but I trust scientists and I trust science.”

And yet you are staggeringly ignorant of the scientific method or else you would be asking the same questions we are. You are like a little kid that wants to be a pilot or a fireman with no clue about what it entails.

“I know this may sound repulsive to you, but I trust scientists and I trust science.”

Naked, unsubstantiated belief. Pinky is a true believer in the religion of AGW.

“I believe they are intelligent people who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of truth in their field, and thank God for them.”

Appeal to authority, ONCE AGAIN.

“Our whole world is based upon the work of scientists doing things and knowing things that we don’t understand.”

Speak for yourself, shitweasel. If you ADMIT that you don’t understand it, then please stop wasting our time and shut the fucking hell up. We actually DO understand it. It’s called “studying” and “analytical thinking.” Too bad you’re incapable thereof.

From everything to communication to travel to medicine, they make modern society possible,”

Yes, but some of us choose to learn about and be participating members, rather than cargo cult-like worshippers of the “Holy Cult of the Scientist.” What a fucking pathetic oxygen thief you are proving yourself to be.

“and teach us more about our universe than humans have ever known in the past.” Well, for those of us who actually choose to UNDERSTAND, rather than blindly believe – which would obviously NOT include you.

You know who you sound like, Pinky????? The fundamentalist Christian “sola scriptura” believers with the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” bumper stickers. Somebody get Pinky a bumper sticker that says, “IPCC said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

Jeebus, but you are a pathetic moron.

Really, if one wants to remain a denier of global warming (anthropogenic global warming, thank you Professor CavalierX), there are no good options.

Problem is, there is not a single shred of proof that human activity is the cause of global warming. Not one. What we do have, however, is proof that a group of key scientists at the CRU (along with some others, like that scumbag Mann) colluding to hide data that did not agree with their predetermined conclusions, tweak computer results to show a temperature rise where none existed and hide the Medieval Warm Period, and discredit scientists who questioned their conclusions. What we “deny” are manufactured conclusions derived from falsified data.

LampofDiogenes,

I just wanted to tell you, I really enjoyed your post. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone cram so many unwarranted intellectual references into one paragraph in the hopes of sounding smart. Ooh, you know what Mark Twain’s real name was–AND his middle name! You’re so smart! Oh, you know what the Reformation is! I bet you read A LOT. And you forgo the pedestrian 1, 2, 3 or A, B, and C in favor of the super-academic lowercase roman numerals. Gee whiz, you must be a college professor or something!

It’s makes it cute that you then misuse a big word or two, and then redundantly use a word and its synonym in the same sentence.

As for the content (what little there is), all you really do is prove my point about needing to be a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist to deny man’s effect on the climate. You even claim that scientists hate modernity and Western culture. I think you’re getting scientists confused with the Taliban. But then, you probably think they’re in on it, huh? Now, that’s a chilling thought.

Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 14:39:12

Pinky still apparently lacks the ability to discuss the SUBSTANCE of the debate. Nice work, oxygen thief.

Tell me, do you know the meaning of any of the following, and how they relate to the THEORY of AGW?

chaotic systems

raw versus “adjusted” data

“open source” code for climate models

“forcing” in relation to the supposed “greenhouse” effect of CO2

how many INDEPENDENT sources of actual temperature data were actually used in these “independent” studies

And, yes, Pinky, I do read a lot. And I actually understand and can analyze what I read. Had you the mental capacity, ‘twould be a nice thing for you to do. But, since you can’t, continue to be a priest of the Cult of Unquestioning Belief in the Pronouncements of Climate “Scientists.” And we’ll continue to laugh at your pathetic ass.

Posted by Pinky 2009-12-10 14:39:12

SITUATION: The branches of a tree are moving.

EXPLAINATIONS
2000 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
1000 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
500 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
250 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
100 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
50 Years Ago: The Wind is blowing.
15 Years Ago: Man has polluted the atmosphere so much that the trees are struggling to break free. We must stop all industrialization and all commerce and live like cavemen (except for Al Gore and the Liberal elite who MUST be allowed to continue to live in the manner to which they have grown acustomed) or the planet is doomed. DOOMED I TELL YOU! We only have 10 years left!

I gotta go, it’s been real, but one more thing: “Hide the decline” is a perfect example, belacuse. It was plucked out of context and presented to you by a right-wing propagandist in a most cynical and dishonest manner.

Of course, without any context, the average AGW denier will jump on that without thought or question as referring to some decline in warming. It does not mean that. The “decline” that quote refers to is rather a very specific part of an equation that has to do with divergence of tree ring patterns from temperature records in modern instrument readings, and “hiding” this decline means finding a mathematical way to account for the divergence problem in order to arrive at a more ACCURATE temperature estimate.

You cretin. For you to read the communications of scientist colleagues talking about the specific details of extremely advanced research techniques and think you can know what it is they’re talking about enough to call them liars is an example of astounding arrogance. And gullibility. Because that’s exactly the reaction that was hoped for by whoever cynically fed you that gem.

I don’t have to prove it

How wonderfully convenient. You come here, make outrageous claims, then when asked to prove said claims you say “well, I don’t have to!”

I know this may sound repulsive to you, but I trust scientists and I trust science.

Really? Because I trust evidence, not “scientists”. Especially when those “scientists” have been caught red-handed faking their data and experiments to get a pre-conceived conclusion.

But then, I guess I’m just not as religious as you are.

Posted by Pinky 2009-12-10 14:55:20

Pinky, there are two explainations for your position.

1) The reason you don’t hear many Conservatives talk about Global Warming is because to you, that mean Man-Caused Global Warming. We talk about it often, but we use the term WEATHER. There have been periods when the temperatures was both hotter and cooler than they are now. In the area of the country where I live, the news each night shows the record high and low temperatures for the day. It is amazing how many times those records were set in consecutive years. You want to believe that man caused it and man can fix it. Both of those hypothesis are incorrect.

2) You are a partisan jackass that will take any position opposite a Conservative, no matter how moronic that position may be.

P.S. The smart money is on Option #2!

Yes, ‘twould. ‘Twould indeed. ‘Twould be twerrific.

My name is LampofDiogenes, and I sew patches on the elbows of my coats and smoke pipes whenever I sit in front of the computer, for ’twill make me feel smart! Methinks I shall have one window open on rightwingnews and one on thesaurus.com, ’twill make it possible for me t’expostulate with such verbages as “ratiocination” and “peradventure,” and ’twill make the people gape at my profundity and depth.

‘Tis time to say goodbye.

“”Hide the decline” is a perfect example, belacuse. It was plucked out of context and presented to you by a right-wing propagandist in a most cynical and dishonest manner.”

Oh dear Pinky, it seems you are the one who has no clue; here’s a link that might (read: will absolutely not) enlighten you…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

Yes retard, I know what “hide the decline” meant. And you are still wrong.

There’s a commonality behind every one of these leftists defending AGW as it falls to pieces like Icarus’ wings: they haven’t read the emails. None of them.

“Hide the decline” is a perfect example, belacuse. It was plucked out of context and presented to you by a right-wing propagandist in a most cynical and dishonest manner.

Yeah, by the devious, underhanded method of reading the quote in context. The bastards!

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
- Phil Jones, fraud and scumbag

‘Tis time to say goodbye.
Posted by Pinky
2009-12-10 15:06:53

I notice Pinky (CERTAINLY not “The Brain”) still can’t address either the substance of the discussion, or even answer my questions.

” It does not mean that. The “decline” that quote refers to is rather a very specific part of an equation that has to do with divergence of tree ring patterns from temperature records in modern instrument readings, and “hiding” this decline means finding a mathematical way to account for the divergence problem in order to arrive at a more ACCURATE temperature estimate.”

Well, actually, no. You are dealing with two different data sets, here – the first, so-called “proxy” data, is inferred temperatures from tree ring measurements. If you can’t figure out how inexact THAT is, you’re too stupid to even be having this discussion. And, YES, there is a “divergence” between this proxy data and actual, observed temperatures, in recent years (might make an intelligent person question how reliable these “proxy” measurements ever were, but we needn’t worry about Pinky being that intelligent). So the scientist in question plopped a disparate data set on top of the proxy numbers, and massaged it to smooth out the discrepancy. And you buy that this generated a MORE ACCURATE result? You really are stupid. Do you know what REAL scientists assume when there is a change in slope right at the point where a different data set starts to be used? That there’s a problem with one or both data sets. Funny how our “climate scientist” instead made the assumption that he could drop actual data on top of proxy data, “smooth” the resulting change in slope, and get a “more accurate” result. Oh, ESPECIALLY since he did not disclose the specifics of what adjustments he made to the data.

But, then, you knew all that, didn’t you, Pinky? No? You didn’t? You really are stupid.

And I find that stupid, insecure people like you are frequently uncomfortable around people who actually do know something, so I ignore your childish (and inaccurate – I don’t smoke, I’ve never owned a jacket with patches, and since getting my doctorate, I have avoided universities like the plague – they instill much bullshit, and little wisdom) insults – besides, in order for your “insults” to be offensive, I would actually have to care about your opinion. And, since you’ve proven yourself a religious zealot and a moron, I don’t.

I don’t have to prove it, William, I’m not a scientist. Scientists have to prove it, and they have. You have chosen to believe they’re lying.

No, they haven’t proven it, Pinky. Their hypothesis goes something like this

1. The climate is warming
2. Co2 has gone up
3. man releases CO2
4. So, it must be all Mankind’s fault.

That is a logical fallacy, based on a wish to blame Mankind. You can insert your own reasons for the why’s. I could just as easily say

1. leaves die in the fall
2. kids go back to school in the fall
3. therefore, kids are responsible for leaves dying

See how easy that is?

In reality, the climate alarmists have not proven anything, just that the world has warmed, just like it has for billions of years after getting cooler/colder. If they really had proven it, they wouldn’t have to be so utterly and completely over the top alarmist. The science would stand on its own. No one has to debate gravity. It exists. AGW doesn’t.

The science would stand on its own. No one has to debate gravity. It exists. AGW doesn’t.
Posted by William Teach
2009-12-10 16:21:03

Teach,

To be completely accurate, I would not say “AGW doesn’t exist.” It may. What does NOT exist is ANY empirical evidence for the proposition that human activity is a major driver of global warming.

Pinky since you are an idiot, and unlikely to know this, I’ll lay it out for you:

1. There is evidence (NOT incontroverted, or incontrovertible, but persuasive evidence) that the Earth is, and has been for the last 100+ years, warming;

2. There are numerous factors influencing “global average temperatures” (and I leave it as an exercise for the student to figure out how meaningful the phrase “global average temperatures” even is), so we need a THEORY to account for why this warming trend exists;

3. Since the Industrial Revolution, human activity has generated increasing amounts of CO2;

4. CO2 displays a WEAK “greenhouse” effect – MUCH weaker in its “greenhouse” effect than CH4 (methane, or “cow farts” to you), and MUCH, MUCH weaker than water vapor (how much water vapor is in the atmosphere, Pinky?);

5. Since the Earth APPEARS to be getting warmer, and this warming APPEARS to coincide with the marked increase in CO2 production from human activity, and CO2 exhibits at least SOME “greenhouse” effect, a THEORY was put forward that the warming is caused by the increase in CO2.

Are you with me, so far, Pinky? Now, normally, REAL science is done by subjecting the theory to experimental testing, to see if experimental results support, or disprove, the theory. Then one publishes the results of their experiment, including the rubric of the experiment and the ACTUAL EXPERIMENTAL DATA. This allows other scientists to either replicate the experimental results, or, if they obtain different results, suggest that the theory might be flawed. If other scientists cannot, from the published information, exactly duplicate the experimental rubric, or, having done so, fail to obtain consistent results, there is a problem with either the theory, or the experiment, or both.

Since the theory of AGW is not susceptible of experimental testing, computer models were created to “test” whether increasing CO2 caused increases in temperatures. Unsurprisingly, all the MODELS showed increasing CO2 caused increasing temperatures. I won’t lecture you on the significance of the fact that the scientists were modeling a chaotic system, and were using data which was, shall we say, less precise and accurate than one might wish. Problem? A model is useful ONLY if it is predictive of actual results – if your model’s predictions don’t match the real world, your model sucks. That is why the CRU scientists were freaking out about the fact that the Earth has been COOLING for the last 11 years – it meant their models did not accurately predict actual occurrences, and were, therefore, clearly flawed (it should be noted, at this point, that they NEVER made the coding for their models public, nor the RAW data they based their models on, nor the details on the adjustments they made to the raw data – making it IMPOSSIBLE for other scientists to duplicate their experiments (and giving rise to all the demands/requests/FOIA requests for the models and the raw data).

You can call all of this many things, Pinky, but “science” ain’t one of them. NONE of this proves the THEORY of AGW. Now, lack of proof is not disproof, but the burden of proof is on the person propounding the theory. So, until someone who is an actual science, practicing the actual scientific method, publishes some experimental results supporting AGW, it remains an UNPROVEN theory. It MAY be true (I won’t bore you with all the reasons, like the CO2 “forcing” issue I referred to above, dealing with the fact that CO2 is, basically, a piss poor “greenhouse” gas, why I am inclined to disbelieve it), but it is NOT proven – by any stretch of any rational person’s imagination.

Seriously, Pinky, quit drinking the AGW Kool Aid and actually do a little studying. Otherwise, you sound like a credulous idiot.

What William is addressing is the difference between a causal relationship and a correlative relationship. There exist no studies in the entire body of work generated by any scientists which unequivocally establish a causal relationship between CO2 and mean global temperature. None. If you know of such a study, one with repeatable evidence that X PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere results in a mean global temperature of Y, then you should deliver that study to Copenhagen pronto. But don’t worry about having to buy an expensive plane ticket, ’cause such a beast just doesn’t exist.

Pinky, while you personally are obviously very quick to dismiss the impact of the leaked communications, data and programme code, they are but a sideshow to the real failings of these scientists. That failing is that despite having spent billions of dollars over the past fifteen years, they still don’t have a “smoking gun” in the form of an ironclad proof that there’s any causal relationship between CO2 and temperature. Further still, even if they were to have that “smoking gun” they don’t have ironclad proof that the CO2 is an artifact of human activities. There have been periods of time in the geological past in which atmospheric CO2 was three or four times what it is today. And they don’t all coincide with periods of warmth.

While you may wish to put your trust in scientists, I prefer to place my trust in the science itself. Scientists are just as prone to biases and flights of fancy as anyone else, so I’ll take my guidance from the facts at hand, rather than the people at hand.

I don’t know how familiar you are with graduate-level academia, but around the world, most of academia survives on the money doled out by others, usually governments. The lion’s share of the academic research money in the US comes from government grants disbursed through the National Institutes of Science, though some have been handled by the National Institute of Health. In the past ten years, NIS/NIH have doled out $89Bn in research money to academics to fund AGW studies. Guess how much has been given to those with competing hypotheses? Less than a billion. You see, since the grantors require the grantees to submit proposals, complete with hypotheses and expected results, for review prior to authorising the grant, NIS/NIH have selectively been funding pro-AGW studies almost exclusively on the past decade. Those researchers who have a different POV have been systematically stiffed for research funding. That, in a nutshell, is the motive for all these scientists to have done what they’ve done over the past 10-15 years. That’s what their emails to one another clearly show – they’ve done everything in their power to defund anyone who isn’t supporting their findings. I’ll leave the ethical discussion for another time, but that has been the motive all along among the scientists – more money to do research. On the part of the hucksters like Mr. Gore, he sees this just in terms of a business opportunity. Carbon trading is as big a scam as was the selling of dispensations by the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance.

And it’s all built on a foundation which doesn’t establish unequivocal and repeatable scientific proof.

The current hypothesis about AGW is that increases in observed atmospheric CO2 concentrations will lead to increased mean global temperatures. Flying in the face of that hypothesis is the rather embarrassing fact that since 1998, mean global temperatures have either held steady or slowly declined. The decline has been more evident in the past three years of data. And yet, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are about 5% higher today than they were 15 years ago. Now, if the hypothesis is correct, that should mean that the climate of the past decade shouldn’t have happened.

Consider for a moment that the primary energy source for our planet is our local star, the Sun. With the exception of what heat leaks out of the Earth’s core and fuels volcanoes and other geothermal processes, all of the energy that drives every process on Earth comes from the Sun. Ten years ago we were at the peak of one of the higher activity level sunspot cycles that we humans have observed. Today, we’re in a very low period of solar activity. It’s been 16 days since any spots were observed on the sun and 2009 is going down in the record books as one of the years with the highest number of sunspotless days. There might be a causal relationship between the two phenomenon, but without access to the funding stream, how are scientist going to pursue that course of investigation? That’s where that motive of grabbing all the money is really hurting the cause of real science.

Sure, temps were up in ’98 and ’99, but given that there are virtually thousands of variables in a system as complex as climate, without researchers pursuing a wide and diverse set of hypotheses, we’ll never figure it out. I remain a sceptic because I’ve never been able to satisfy my need for a definitive and unequivocal proof that CO2, and specifically man-made CO2 is the cause of the temperature spike which occurred in 1998/99.

Pinky’s spittle-flecked rants gave me furiously to think: Isn’t it amazing how the Left constantly libels the Right as “anti-science” and “anti-intellectual,” yet they make NO EFFORT to actually analyze and understand the science behind the positions they assert? Pinky merely points to the “Priests of AGW” as his authority, indicating that he “trusts them” (with the OBVIOUS implication that they are MUCH smarter than we troglodyte Reichwingnuts), and then his every post and comment makes it abundantly clear that he has NO IDEA of what their “science” consists. Pretty damn funny, when you think about it.

The strange thing is that the data showing warming over the last 100 years is beginning to look a bit questionable. That it was worked over – for example, data from the grand canyon wasn’t showing warming, so it was adjusted up (“homogenized”) to fit better with data from a nearby city which was showing warming. Data from the ice cores in Greenland seem to show an overall cooling pattern over the last several hundred years, not warming. The picture isn’t as clear as we once thought, and a great deal of that confusion is because of shenanigans by guys like the ones at Hadley CRU.