Climategate, AP Not Impressed

[edthecynic]

I'm projecting nothing and not a "CON$".

There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.

Still lying, I see.

What will it take to get you to stop lying?????????????????????????????????

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What will it take for you two bitches to take your little squabble over to the Flame zone or the PMS?


AGW has yet to be demonstrated

Both sides claim to have refuted the each the other, yet neither really has; the positive claim of AGW bears the burden of proof

That burden has not been met, as no testable, verifiable theory has been put forth regarding how man-made CO^2 (and/or other airborne pollution) can and does, in a non-linear system as complex as global weather patterns and long-term climatic conditions, have such an intense effect as has been claimed.

No systematic, willful conspiracy has been shown along the lines claimed by the 'Climatgate Conspiracy Theorists), who refuse to hear out any rebuttal based on the claim that 'the conspirators control the investigations'- just like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists do. However, they have raised valid questions as to how personal beliefs and bias may have effected the methodology and offer good reasons to investigate the lack of transparency in much of the research; in turn, this raises concerns about the way in which research is currently funded.

In the end, while AWG is still an unproven hypothesis, we do know that DDT is toxic, breathing car exhaust is harmful, and many drugs are getting into the water supplies. Once again, I ask why we don't focus on these issues, which have been proven time and again and can actually be addressed (unlike AGW, which if correct, is near impossible for the US alone to address).

 

[Si modo]

What will it take for you two bitches to take your little squabble over to the Flame zone or the PMS?


AGW has yet to be demonstrated

Both sides claim to have refuted the each the other, yet neither really has; the positive claim of AGW bears the burden of proof

That burden has not been met, as no testable, verifiable theory has been put forth regarding how man-made CO^2 (and/or other airborne pollution) can and does, in a non-linear system as complex as global weather patterns and long-term climatic conditions, have such an intense effect as has been claimed.

No systematic, willful conspiracy has been shwon along the lines claimed by the 'CLimatgate Conspiracy Theorists), who refuse to hear out any rebuttal based on the claim that 'the conspirators control the investigations'- just like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists do. However, they have raised valid queestions as to how personal beliefs and bias may have effected the methodology and pffer good reasons to investigate the lack of transparency in much of the research; in turn, this raises concerns about the way in which funding is currently funded.

In the end, while AWG is still an unproven hypothesis, we do know that DDT is toxic, breathing car exhaust is harmful, and many drugs are getting into the water supplies. ONce again, I ask why we don't focus on these issues, which have been proven time and again and can actually be addressed (unlike AGW, which if correect, is near impossible for the US alone to adress).

But to answer your question, we do not focus on those other issues likely because there are few political activists mouthing off about them.

 

[Ravi]

There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.

 

[JimH52]

The case for fraud is "dead on arrival." Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.

 

[Liability]

The case for fraud is "dead on arrival." Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.

The case against fraud is non-existent. Just a little helpful FYI.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The case for fraud is "dead on arrival." Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.

The case against fraud is non-existent. Just a little helpful FYI.

You're a fucking moron. Those who allege fraud bear the burden of proof.

 

[Liability]

The case for fraud is "dead on arrival." Lush Rimbaugh needs to find another band wagon to cry on, so that his elves make him a few more million dollars.

The case against fraud is non-existent. Just a little helpful FYI.

You're a fucking moron. Those who allege fraud bear the burden of proof.

No, ma'am. It is YOU who retains the title of fucking moron.

Well, perhaps it's fucking imbecile, in your case.

Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead. Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.

And since the e-mails clearly suggest that the data has been tampered with, it is even more critical to support the validity of the data if you expect anybody to proceed to "rely" on that data as any kind of basis to assess the merits of the AGW theory.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead. Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.

Damned, you're stupid.

If you claim AGW is real, you bear the burden of proof in relation to that claim.

Likewise, to claim fraud (as opposed to simply contesting the data/conclusions), you bear the burden of proof- you must proof fraud just as the other side must prove AGW.

It's not that fucking complicated. Two separate claims made by two sides. Each side bears BoP for their own claims.

Perhaps you're just too stupid to understand.

 

[Liability]

Those who attest to the veracity of the alleged scientific data have the original burden, shithead. Nice plodding attempt to shift the burden, but you are a schmuck; so you fail.

Damned, you're stupid.

If you claim AGW is real, you bear the burden of proof in relation to that claim.

Likewise, to claim fraud (as opposed to simply contesting the data/conclusions), you bear the burden of proof- you must proof fraud just as the other side must prove AGW.

It's not that fucking complicated. Two separate claims made by two sides. Each side bears BoP for their own claims.

Perhaps you're just too stupid to understand.

Damn! But it's YOU who remains stupid, obtuse, asshole-y and a complete imbecile!

No surprise. I've read some of your prior retarded offerings.

If a proponent of AGW says it's real (what the fuck else a proponent would say is a bit of a mystery, of course, you idiot), then YES he does have the burden, ya schmuck.

And if I challenge his stupid ass on his contention, then he STILL has the burden to back up his initial claim that the data is unsullied, you fucking moron.

There's no question about it. You ARE too stupid --

to breathe.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Challenging the conclusion is not the the same and making a positive claim of fraud, idiot.

Why are you right-wingers always so stupid?

 

[Liability]

Challenging the conclusion is not the the same and making a positive claim of fraud, idiot.

Why are you right-wingers always so stupid?

Challenging the validity of the data relied upon by the proponents of AGW (especially where the challenge is based on facts revealed in the e-mails establishing at least the prospect that the data has been distorted and concealed) is a perfectly valid basis to raise the challenge that there has been fraud and thus require the proponents of AGW to prove up their data, ya fucking libtarded shithead.

Why are you left-wingers always so adamant when you are actually so fucking clueless, ya braindead fucktard?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

you allege fraud. Prove it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

you allege fraud. Prove it.

 

[Oddball]

I'm projecting nothing and not a "CON$".

There's no dishonor in admitting that your mind is made up and closed...Just go with it.

Still lying, I see.

What will it take to get you to stop lying?????????????????????????????????

Still lamely attempting to avoid answering the question, as to what information you would accept which could disprove your hypothesis. Hence, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your mind is made up and posting any further information is a complete waste of time.

Oh, by the way, increasing the amount of superfluous question marks at the end of your evasions doesn't help camouflage the fact that you're a closed-minded political hack.

 

[Liability]

you allege fraud. Prove it.

I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW. The proponent has the initial burden. Defend the use of that data in light of what the e-mails reveal.

If what you are trying to grunt out is the question "on what basis can a claim of fraud be made?" then I again point out the e-mails to you. Deal with it, ya fucktard.

You now know exactly what the basis is for the challenge to the authenticity and integrity of YOUR data. So, meet your intitial burden and stop being an evasive pussy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.

So you're changing your story now that you've been proven a liar

noted

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.

So you're changing your story now that you've been proven a liar

noted

 

[JimH52]

The dogma that you people spew is what makes you so charming. Rather than try to attack the Democrats on substance, where they are very weak, you hitch your wagon to rediculous stolen e-mails and the Moose Woman....NICE!

 

[Liability]

I allege that there is serious doubt about the scientific reliability of the DATA used by proponents of AGW.

So you're changing your story now that you've been proven a liar

noted

I am curious why you now find it necessary to outright lie? Tsk.

I have not lied at all, much less been "proved" to have lied, you liar.

And, obviously, I have not "changed my story," either, you fucktarded schmuck.

Try again when you're up to being honest if that day ever arrives.