Climate change Skeptics baffled by CNN converage of "climategate"

[pilobolus]

Originally Posted by pixikill

pm me too.

So you can hunt me down and take a trophy head?

[pixikill]

Originally Posted by pilobolus

So you can hunt me down and take a trophy head?

yes.

[pixikill]

<img alt="A message from your Australian Greens Senators">

<img alt="Join the campaign online" border="0"> Dear friends,

It’s polluters’ payday in Parliament House, but to listen to Kevin Rudd you'd think he's just saved the world.

Help make sure Kevin doesn't get away with his climate double talk.

Kevin Rudd has once again bent over backwards to give the polluters and the climate sceptics what they asked for, pinching another $5.8 billion out of taxpayers’ pockets on the way through.

Now is a critical moment to stand up and be counted, to say “not in my name”, to call Kevin Rudd out for his climate hypocrisy.

We need floods of letters to editors to make the clear point that Australians will not accept an emission s trading scheme that locks in failure.

If we keep fighting this, we can still drive real action in the years to come!

Yours in hope,
Bob and Christine

PS: If you are in Sydney or Melbourne, please come to one of the snap protests today.

Melbourne: 1pm, steps of the State Library marching to Lindsay Tanners office; call the Greens office for more info on 03 9912 2999

Sydney: 1pm, Kevin Rudd’s office, 70 Phillip St (between Bent and Bridge Streets, closest train stations is Circular Quay)

[Mars S]

Originally Posted by pilobolus

Mars S, a long-time contributor stated "Scientists have shown us that the earth is a dynamic place and undergoes natural cycles". When prodded to explain why those same-said scientists also provided evidence that human impacts add to the natural signal, he noted that "sometimes, scientists are wrong...particularly when they run awry of my preconceived notions on the subject....it isn't warming, and even if it is, it is natural and animals will adapt or die...there is nothing we can do about it even if we are the cause".

Actually pilo, the people who've observed the dynamism of the earth don't need "scientists" to tell them that there are volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis.
Average people provide the best observations. They observe with a variety of senses and unlike instruments that only measure some change (dynamism) people feel.
I note that the predictions of the experts are wrong every year with respect to storms. No one can reliably predict weather over more than 3 days. They can't predict it a year out and they can't predict it in a century. No one can do much better than "it's going to be a cold winter" with any degree of accuracy. If NOAA claims the global average goes up a micro-degree you don't know if it's because the "scientists" excluded numbers that they didn't like.
If earth is in a warming cycle, tell me who can do something about it, besides taxing people for living. It'd be an amazing transfer of wealth...

It surely looks like the guys you trust are corrupt and the data you hold so dear is too. You don't know what's real or not.

Curious thing though, you get up on your hindlegs and demand the bona fides of anyone who dares to question the graphs. Example: your recent exchanges about Lord Monckton. All you know is that he's a skeptic and evidently a very-well informed one. You decided he's not a valid opinion based on the fact that he challenged the gw/cc camp.

You couldn't dissect his essay, you needed someone else to do that and you don't know if their complaints are valid.

I recognize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but at least learn to mock me with some wit.

[Voice of Reason]

So rather than face the facts and admit your heroes have feet of clay -- er, rather, are total frauds that is -- you spin up ridicule and mock people who have been correct all along in assessing AGW as junk science.

Fake but accurate is the new byline? Nice to meet you, Mr. Rather.

[pilobolus]

Originally Posted by Mars S

Actually pilo, the people who've observed the dynamism of the earth don't need "scientists" to tell them that there are volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis.
Average people provide the best observations. They observe with a variety of senses and unlike instruments that only measure some change (dynamism) people feel.
I note that the predictions of the experts are wrong every year with respect to storms. No one can reliably predict weather over more than 3 days. They can't predict it a year out and they can't predict it in a century. No one can do much better than "it's going to be a cold winter" with any degree of accuracy. If NOAA claims the global average goes up a micro-degree you don't know if it's because the "scientists" excluded numbers that they didn't like.
If earth is in a warming cycle, tell me who can do something about it, besides taxing people for living. It'd be an amazing transfer of wealth...

It surely looks like the guys you trust are corrupt and the data you hold so dear is too. You don't know what's real or not.

Curious thing though, you get up on your hindlegs and demand the bona fides of anyone who dares to question the graphs. Example: your recent exchanges about Lord Monckton. All you know is that he's a skeptic and evidently a very-well informed one. You decided he's not a valid opinion based on the fact that he challenged the gw/cc camp.

You couldn't dissect his essay, you needed someone else to do that and you don't know if their complaints are valid.

I recognize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but at least learn to mock me with some wit.

Until you appreciate that climate and weather are two different fields, there is no point in me considering your points further. It is true that I would have a hard time refuting the goobledigook of Monkton's math, but lets face it; you no more could validate it that I can refute it. Fortunately, we have people who do this for a living that can and there are far more of them than supporters of Monkton's nonsense. If his math was good, it would be published and cited as predictive! That is the thing about science, it is self correcting.

We may have a huge correcting event here for the tree ring data, but don't start saying this event applies to all of climate science (which is, again, not a weather forecast).

[pixikill]

Originally Posted by Mars S

Actually pilo, the people who've observed the dynamism of the earth don't need "scientists" to tell them that there are volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis.
Average people provide the best observations. They observe with a variety of senses and unlike instruments that only measure some change (dynamism) people feel.
I note that the predictions of the experts are wrong every year with respect to storms. No one can reliably predict weather over more than 3 days. They can't predict it a year out and they can't predict it in a century. No one can do much better than "it's going to be a cold winter" with any degree of accuracy. If NOAA claims the global average goes up a micro-degree you don't know if it's because the "scientists" excluded numbers that they didn't like.
If earth is in a warming cycle, tell me who can do something about it, besides taxing people for living. It'd be an amazing transfer of wealth...

It surely looks like the guys you trust are corrupt and the data you hold so dear is too. You don't know what's real or not.

Curious thing though, you get up on your hindlegs and demand the bona fides of anyone who dares to question the graphs. Example: your recent exchanges about Lord Monckton. All you know is that he's a skeptic and evidently a very-well informed one. You decided he's not a valid opinion based on the fact that he challenged the gw/cc camp.

You couldn't dissect his essay, you needed someone else to do that and you don't know if their complaints are valid.

I recognize that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but at least learn to mock me with some wit.

i know it, you know it, we all know it; pilo shits all over you, marcie.
hes wittier. cleverer, vastly more knowledgeable and very patient with empty vessels like yourself.
i bet hes even handsome.

[pilobolus]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason

So rather than face the facts and admit your heroes have feet of clay -- er, rather, are total frauds that is -- you spin up ridicule and mock people who have been correct all along in assessing AGW as junk science.

Fake but accurate is the new byline? Nice to meet you, Mr. Rather.

Heroes? Apparently, you have not been reading my responses in other threads; I am willing to throw them to the dogs if they cannot adequately explain their emails...I think some of them are unforgivable if we can trust the unknown source that posted them and eventually read them in context.

Funny how they are the genuine article to you and yet you (1) don't know the context, (2) don't know of they have been manipulated (3) fail to appreciate that this may doom only one of many lines of evidence.

You say that I ridicule and mock those those that have been correct, but all I have asked is, time and time again, to explain the record and why it appears to be different now than in half a million years of natural cycles? Sure, I could be wrong, but no one ever answers because you have already decided...and it appears that you have decided that all of science is colluding to destroy our economy! Think about that for a moment, would you?

yes, I ridicule pseudo science institutions that create their own journals in order to get their word out, but I tell you, if they created something that better explained observation, they'd be published and cited...

I really think the difference between you and me is that I am willing to be shown to be wrong, but you seem to be in a battle against a global conspiracy!

[Omega]

Pilo you rule.

[Mars S]

Originally Posted by pilobolus

Until you appreciate that climate and weather are two different fields, there is no point in me considering your points further. It is true that I would have a hard time refuting the goobledigook of Monkton's math, but lets face it; you no more could validate it that I can refute it. Fortunately, we have people who do this for a living that can and there are far more of them than supporters of Monkton's nonsense. If his math was good, it would be published and cited as predictive! That is the thing about science, it is self correcting.

PLEASE don't talk like an idiot. Climate is weather over time. Are you claiming the rules are different because "the scientists" are looking at longer periods?
My calculus is barely adequate to my needs. My algebra could stand improvement too. I've never been talking about the models except to question their applicability. I do pay attention to the fact that there is very sparse data for anything before the 20th century. There is very sparse data for most of the 20th century oceans and atmosphere. We have a few decades of fairly detailed data and you're willing to assume without a scrap of evidence that the models are correct.
We were discussing the Mauna Loa CO2 lab in ecology today. Funny thing how ever since it came online it's picked up continually rising levels of CO2. It's almost like the device was being fine-tuned to be more accurate.
I'm to accept, without any question, that a satellite can measure sea-level changes of 0.1 mm.
I don't know about you but I see waves every time I'm on the water which is several times a week. I see tidal changes, spring tides, eddy currents but I'm not seeing a rise on pilings that have been in place for 50 years.
It doesn't occur to you that the methodology is suspect. Exactly WHAT evidence are you using to support satellite measurements of sea level change?
It's all filtered through a few guys who we now discover have been rejecting alternative hypotheses.

We may have a huge correcting event here for the tree ring data, but don't start saying this event applies to all of climate science (which is, again, not a weather forecast).

Actually I said that we had to go slow because all of the data isn't invalid. It's just incomplete.
I'm guessing from the way you talk sometimes, that you have some familiarity with biology. If you read the lit you know that cell bio is a constantly changing field. New discoveries are cropping up with new and often untested hypotheses as to what's happening. Lipid rafts, cytoskeletal depolymerization cascades...it's breathtaking. Do we know everything about cells? Can we currently program a stem cell to specialize and divide indefinitely without becoming cancerous? Can we create a self-replicating bacterium?
We can insert genes into bacteria and some other organisms easily enough...doesn't last too long though.
The answers to all those questions is the same. "No, not yet." We're at the same place in climate studies. Now we're not even sure where we are because of these idiots. "Top scientists" can be idiots too, pilo.