ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

[Si modo]

Si Modo, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm saying it's not uncommon in Science. If I said it was normal, then it was obviously taken a bit out of context considering. What I'm saying is this isn't rare. At this level supposedly? Certainly rare. However, this sort of behavior in Science is nothing new.

You said it was normal and you said it several times. It is NOT normal for scientists to marginalize other scientists and it is considered very poor form to do so.

 

[Modbert]

All day I've been saying the same. I am pretty certain that some are going to be gone, that never thought they would be. I think some oversight, long needed is going to happen.

Just a couple posts ago I said that the emails don't 'prove' anything, other than a lot of smoke and heat. Fire? That remains to be seen.

Some oversight in Science will be most likely outright rejected by the Scientific Community. Maybe in some areas will be allowed, but others, certainly not.

 

[Modbert]

You said it was normal and you said it several times. It is NOT normal for scientists to marginalize other scientists and it is considered very poor form to do so.

What I was trying to say that it wasn't this rare thing that has never occurred before like some were acting.

"Oh my god, some scientists supposedly lying or doing dishonest things to further their own stature!? What's next? Santa Claus is a Lie? "

 

[Big Fitz]

All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.

Freeze right there. I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.

Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.
Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.

Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things. Poisons, acids... shit like that.

Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality. This is a false analogy. CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases. Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption. We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.

Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself. Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively. We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition. But these did not change the climate. They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.

Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses. The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.

Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires. Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.

Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet. Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.

So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming. It's a lie and we all know it.

 

[Si modo]

All day I've been saying the same. I am pretty certain that some are going to be gone, that never thought they would be. I think some oversight, long needed is going to happen.

Just a couple posts ago I said that the emails don't 'prove' anything, other than a lot of smoke and heat. Fire? That remains to be seen.

Some oversight in Science will be most likely outright rejected by the Scientific Community. Maybe in some areas will be allowed, but others, certainly not.

It will be rejected. Science has depended on peer-review for oversight.

This is an insult to all of science what these clowns did. They sold out the integrity of science.

 

[Annie]

Marginalization exists in many forms. I gave you two major examples in recent history where it has occurred. Especially in the Double Helix case.

I'm not saying all scientists are liars, cheats, or evil people. I'm saying many of them are dedicated people who are sometimes too dedicated and do dishonest things. Science is a rough and tumble world where you have to have results, otherwise you lose all your funding, and then you're out of a job.

We may not like that fact, but that's the way it is. Somebody has to foot the bill for these guys to do the research.

Then kill all the scientists! Seriously. Do you see that funding is coming from taxes and charitable contributions; if most are acting as you purport to KNOW, do NOT deserve 1 cent of money through US grants, nor would I give 1 cent more to American Heart Assn; American Cancer Assn; Muscular Dystrophy... See where this goes? THAT is how they would really lose $$$.

Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.

Again, I'm not in hard sciences, but have more than a working knowledge of writing, reading, and reviewing peer reviews; along with scientific method. My first two degrees were in political science and sociology, both of which required 500 level stats. Problem with the soft sciences is that one is nearly always dealing with data collected from another source, be it census, county, or political parties. The results are dependent on the quality of the data.

I've envied the hard sciences and their much more refined measurement tools. That's probably what frustrates me so with this.

 

[Modbert]

Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.

You can feel to bring my age over and over if you like. However, it doesn't do much.

You should be happy that someone my age is this involved with current events and the affairs of this country. Or would you much rather have me be an apathic person who just spends his time playing video games? Meanwhile, complaining about how naive the younger people are.

 

[Modbert]

Freeze right there. I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.

Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.
Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.

Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things. Poisons, acids... shit like that.

Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality. This is a false analogy. CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases. Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption. We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.

Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself. Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively. We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition. But these did not change the climate. They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.

Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses. The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.

Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires. Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.

Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet. Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.

So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming. It's a lie and we all know it.

If you don't mind actually reading my post for a second and take a step back with all of your self-righteousness for a moment. I never equated Global Warming with Pollution.

So you can feel free to apologize to me now.

 

[Si modo]

Most scientists certainly do NOT act in the manner that a freshman undergrad student of the liberal arts claims.

You can feel to bring my age over and over if you like. However, it doesn't do much.

You should be happy that someone my age is this involved with current events and the affairs of this country. Or would you much rather have me be an apathic person who just spends his time playing video games? Meanwhile, complaining about how naive the younger people are.

Your age is irrelevant. The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.

 

[Modbert]

Your age is irrelevant. The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.

You say my age is irrelevant but you're invoking it constantly such as you just did.

You have brought my age several times. And while I honestly don't care, especially since I would like to know where exactly you were at my age and place as a Freshman Undergrad Student.

I can speak with authority based on upon what I know, and dishonesty in the Scientific Community is nothing new. That is my main point I've been trying to get across. I'm not saying it's the norm for all scientists, merely that it has occurred in a major fashion in the past more than a few times.

 

[Si modo]

Your age is irrelevant. The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any authority about what is normal in the scientific community IS relevant.

You say my age is irrelevant but you're invoking it constantly such as you just did. ....

Your age is irrelevant. The fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any credibility on the sciences and the scientific community IS relevant.

YOU are the one who has mentioned your age here. I have mentioned your ignorance. And you are obviously ignorant of the fact that there are freshman undergrad students of all ages. You're being defensive about your age.

.... You have brought my age several times. And while I honestly don't care, especially since I would like to know where exactly you were at my age and place as a Freshman Undergrad Student. ....

First of all, only YOU have mentioned you age in this thread (and I have responded that it is irrelevant).

Secondly, the fact that you are a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts who thinks he can speak with any credibility about the sciences and the scientific community IS relevant.

.... I can speak with authority based on upon what I know, and dishonesty in the Scientific Community is nothing new. ....

And no one has said it is new.

I have challenged your idiotic notion that it is normal, as you said several times.

.... That is my main point I've been trying to get across. ....

By saying it is normal? Hardly.

.... I'm not saying it's the norm for all scientists, ...

YES, you did - several times. Over and over you've said it.

.... merely that it has occurred in a major fashion in the past more than a few times.

Which is NOT what you said when you said, several times, that it is normal.

 

[Modbert]

Si Modo, what you're doing is quite stupid to be honest.

You're harping on my misuse of the word of normal where the word I should of used throughout is uncommon as I did several times. If you want to act like a 5 year old still, please continue on.

If you would like to discuss this like two people, no matter whether they are a undergrad college student or out of college, let me know.

 

[edthecynic]

Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. Yeah, that is always is a determining factor here. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US. You don't see the excuses and lack of ethics here? They are controlling 'peer review' for themselves and others. When hitting data that doesn't correlate to the models, it appears that it's the data, not the models they want to 'change.'

What I see is you see only what you WANT to see and not what is there.

Nowhere does that email say "they want to change the data"!!!!!!!!
That is purely your own imaginative invention!!!!

NCEP and ERA-40 are two forecasting models and the email is saying that the ERA-40 forecast is CONSISTENT with the REAL surface temps data and the lower atmosphere data and NCEP is not. There is absolutely nothing that even remotely implies they want to CHANGE the real surface temps data or lower atmosphere data!!!!!!

 

[Big Fitz]

Freeze right there. I'm not going to let this blatant fallacy stand.

Global warming does NOT EQUAL air pollution.
Air Pollution does NOT EQUAL Global Warming.

Air pollution deals with toxic gases and precipitates that are in the sky that cause harm to living things. Poisons, acids... shit like that.

Global Warming, or Climate Change has nothing to do with air quality. This is a false analogy. CO2, Methane, Water Vapor are naturally occuring greenhouse gases. Mankind cannot produce even enough of these naturally occurring materials to equal that of one MODERATE volcanic eruption. We are unable to affect our environment in this manner.

Mankind has proven himself quite capable of poisoning himself. Instances like Love Canal and PCB pollutants and the the infamous "Cuyahuga River Fire" (which was actually common back in the day) should prove this point quite effectively. We can destroy environments through acts of carelessness such as over logging, uncontrolled mining and other destructive resource aquisition. But these did not change the climate. They wrecked a region, and since the climate remained the same, often the destroyed environment returned generally in the same form that had been destroyed previously.

Look at the hills and areas around San Francisco where they used to do hydrologic mining with high pressure hoses. The forest there is not gone except for any area that was made agricultural.

Look at Yellowstone after the forest fires. Pretty effectively destroyed, but it came back like before, if not better without the choking underbrush.

Mankind has to get over it's damnable hubris that he can destroy the planet. Even with nuclear weapons, we are the ones who have the most to fear, for we are the most precariously placed animal in the world in many regards.

So let's cut the crap of trying to equate air pollution with global warming. It's a lie and we all know it.

If you don't mind actually reading my post for a second and take a step back with all of your self-righteousness for a moment. I never equated Global Warming with Pollution.

So you can feel free to apologize to me now.

If you are not equating GW with pollution why do you make this statement?

All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.

Looks to me like you are saying Global Warming whether true or not is connected to pollution. I've heard this association made many times before with the "If you don't want to stop global warming, you want to poison us all" crowd. My issue is that you are perpetuating this myth with your statement perpetuates, be it deliberate or out of ignorance to the impression you were giving.

I've nothing to apologize for.

 

[Si modo]

Si Modo, what you're doing is quite stupid to be honest.

You're harping on my misuse of the word of normal where the word I should of used throughout is uncommon as I did several times. If you want to act like a 5 year old still, please continue on.

If you would like to discuss this like two people, no matter whether they are a undergrad college student or out of college, let me know.

What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said several times that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community. Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across. You were wrong - flat wrong. Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal. But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine. I'll drop it.

 

[Modbert]

If you are not equating GW with pollution why do you make this statement?

All I know is, whether Global Warming exists or not, polluting our air to the point where it begins to kill us or lower our health is not good.

Looks to me like you are saying Global Warming whether true or not is connected to pollution. I've heard this association made many times before with the "If you don't want to stop global warming, you want to poison us all" crowd. My issue is that you are perpetuating this myth with your statement perpetuates, be it deliberate or out of ignorance to the impression you were giving.

I've nothing to apologize for.

Why did I say it? Because Pollution in large amounts is bad. And I still see people who deny that the fact that the amount of pollution we make has no affect on air quality, etc. I just had a discussion with someone IRL on this topic. Whether Global Warming exists or not, our actions when it concerns the environment have an effect.

Note the keyword in your explaining, "looks". Well guess what, I know exactly what I'm saying. Just because you jumped to shove your self-righteousness down my throat, doesn't give you a right to jump to conclusions. You should of asked me what I was saying first. I do the same, I ask people to clarify before I jump to conclusions.

You do have something to apologize for, question is whether you'll be a man or not and step up to do so.

P.S: If you weren't new here, you'd realize after I reply to someone, I speak in general terms often.

 

[Modbert]

What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said several times that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community. Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across. You were wrong - flat wrong. Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal. But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine. I'll drop it.

The problem here is that you mistook my argument and therefore mistook what I said. Notice that I'm not having this problem with Annie? Notice that me and her can speak like two reasonable adults.

I'm not sure what is the problem with some of you in this thread, maybe it's your "outrage" shining through. All I know is that it's making some of you act very irrational.

I have already admitted I should of used the word uncommon instead of normal. I would say you need to act like a grown up, because you are the one acting like a five year old in this thread.

 

[Big Fitz]

Because Pollution in large amounts is bad.

So you're standing by your belief that global warming and pollution are related?

Whether Global Warming exists or not, our actions when it concerns the environment have an effect.

Maybe you need to re-read MY post. I agreed that mankind CAN poison his environment.

Well guess what, I know exactly what I'm saying.

Possibly you do. But I have doubts as to your knowledge of how what you say appears to others. Hence the issue as a whole.

You should of asked me what I was saying first. I do the same, I ask people to clarify before I jump to conclusions.

Meh... we'll see if that holds true. I've not read enough of your posts to verify that yet.

You do have something to apologize for, question is whether you'll be a man or not and step up to do so.

Look, I could agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Your denigration of my manhood is an ineffectual debate tactic as well. I don't jump off of bridges because everyone else is too.

 

[Si modo]

Scientists disagreeing is normal and par for the course. Collusion to marginalize and even destroy the careers of those who disagree is not.

Are you kidding me? Collusion to marginalize other scientists isn't normal?

I'm not saying whether that is the case here or not. However, that is more normal in the scientific community than you think and has been for centuries.

In the scientific community, it most certainly is NOT normal. It's poor form and an indication that the science is poor when the rhetoric of words is more important than the rhetoric of the science.

In the Scientific Community, Collusion to marginalize other scientists is normal and has been for centuries. There is also the taking of credit of other scientists work and the such.

Look up the name Rosalind Franklin.

I have no idea which scientific community you are talking about, but it is not normal in the scientific community I know. If that's necessary, then the rhetoric of the science is naturally in question. It is not a normal practice.

It is certainly a normal practice. Again, look up the name Rosalind Franklin. Look her up on wikipedia. That is only one major example of what science has always been.

[Emphasis added]

What is dishonest, or simply some odd character trait, is your lack of any ability to admit that you were dead wrong when you said several times that dishonesty (and marginalization) is normal practice in the scientific community. Suck it up, be a grown-up (NOW you can whine about my bringing up your age) and stop trying to weasel out of your attempt to try to get your clearly erroneous claim of what is normal in the scientific community across. You were wrong - flat wrong. Not even third-graders repeatedly 'misuse' the word normal. But if that is a more desirable impression for you to own than to be a big boy, fine. I'll drop it.

The problem here is that you mistook my argument and therefore mistook what I said. Notice that I'm not having this problem with Annie? Notice that me and her can speak like two reasonable adults.

I'm not sure what is the problem with some of you in this thread, maybe it's your "outrage" shining through. All I know is that it's making some of you act very irrational.

I have already admitted I should of used the word uncommon instead of normal. I would say you need to act like a grown up, because you are the one acting like a five year old in this thread.

I mistook nothing but your repeated claims (see above) of what is normal in the scientific community. YOUR words, several times.

You will get treated like a child when you, a freshman undergrad student in the liberal arts, THINK that you can speak with some credibility on what is normal in the scientific community, as you did above.

Such hubris that goes beyond the point of hubris into utter stubborn stupidity is common with those who are immature.

Grow up. Grown ups - those with developed character - do not pathetically try to weasel out of their clear errors. Grown ups do not attempt to lay blame on another for their own errors.

 

[Modbert]

Meh... we'll see if that holds true. I've not read enough of your posts to verify that yet.

I'm not saying that Pollution = Global Warming. Let me make that very clear for you. I'm saying which is what you agree with me on, that mankind can poison the environment. That is why I mentioned Japan and their water situation exactly after.

As for your post, that first part I've kept is exactly my point. You have not read enough of my posts to know how I post. YET, you jumped to a conclusion, and THOUGHT I had said something. Welcome to the board I would like to say, and I would recommend asking people to clarify before you assume their style of posting.

I'm not doing anything to your manhood. I'm simply saying you should apologize for jumping to shove your self-righteousness in my face when you should of asked me to clarify. You could of avoided typing all that up by asking me a simple question.