It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climategate? Paranoid delusions of the denialist!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
...well, at least that's what they'll have you believe.

Please be kind enough to take the time to review the following excerpts from this recent and inevitably provocative Nature.com editorial:



To these denialists, the scientists' scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial 'smoking gun': proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe. This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.


Eh? I'm thunderstruck, flabbergasted and taken aback. Notice the selective vernacular used to define anyone but a proponent of the editors skewed convictions:


  1. denialists
  2. scathing
  3. paranoid
  4. laughable
  5. obstructionist




A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories.


Since when are AGW antagonists native conspiracy theorists? Is this not insufferably synonymous with how dissension is masqueraded as terrorism?



One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a 'trick' — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results.


Last time I checked, the contextual definition for the word 'trick' was as follows:



1 a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud


Thoughts and deductions anyone?

(PS: First thread start; howdy from Ireland)



[edit on 3-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]

[edit on 3-12-2009 by rexusdiablos]




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
As long as they keep calling the people that want to see the hard evidence that "man is almost certainly causing the globe to warm" "deniers" us "deniers" are just going to go harder on them.

Also I like how in all the defenses of the "trick" line the AGW proponents never include the phrase that the trick was referring too, which was the "Trick to hide the decline".

It's a bunch of hogwash and you can tell they are on the defense. Their very credibility is on the line and they know it. Well by this time next year Nature magazine will be on it's very last legs as a mag.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


Really i thought trick had other meanings and heres the oxford dictionary at its best

trick / trik /
• n. 1. a cunning or skillful act or scheme intended to deceive or outwit someone: he's a double-dealer capable of any mean trick.
∎ a mischievous practical joke: she thought Elaine was playing some trick on her.
∎ a skillful act performed for entertainment or amusement: he did conjuring tricks for his daughters.
∎ an illusion: I thought I saw a flicker of emotion, but it was probably a trick of the light .
∎ a clever or particular way of doing something: the trick is to put one ski forward and kneel.
2. a peculiar or characteristic habit or mannerism: she had a trick of ...

Notice the one in bold............



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by loner007
 


Riiiight, we forgot that "trickeries" are done not to deceive other people....


The AGW zombies will make every excuse for their masters that they can find, and what they usually do is close their eyes really tight, cover their ears really tight with their hands as they yell "na na na nana, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!".....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


If the sceptic's haven't got the proof of data manipulation, then it's difficult to accept the sceptic's as doing nothing more than jumping to conclusions. The sceptic's fell into the trap, just like the UFO believers who believe the hoaxes still to be real.

If sceptic's want to be taken seriously, then behave more like scientists, and not conspiracy theorists, and then only they'll help to determine the truth. And they'll have to accept it whatever gut feeling or emotional reaction, and start using logic & reason.

This is what needs to happen rather than outlandish sensationalist speculation =>

UK University to probe integrity of climate data


LONDON — A British university said Thursday it would investigate whether scientists at its prestigious Climatic Research Unit fudged data on global warming.

Thousands of pieces of correspondence between some of the world's leading climate scientists were stolen from the unit at the University of East Anglia and leaked to the Internet late last month. Skeptics of man-made global warming say the e-mails are proof that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence showing that global warming was not as strong as generally believed.

Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down Tuesday pending the result of the investigation.

The university had promised a probe when Jones stepped down, but didn't specify what the investigation would encompass. Thursday's announcement was the first acknowledgment that the research itself would be under scrutiny.

East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

The theft of the e-mails and their publication online — only weeks before the U.N. summit on global warming — has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.

There was further criticism following the revelation that the university had thrown out much of the raw temperature data on which its global warming research was based. The university said in a statement last week that the data, stored on paper and magnetic tape, was dumped in the 1980s to save space when the unit moved to a new location.

The release of the data has prompted some lawmakers in Britain to warn that critics of climate change want to wreck any global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that could be achieved at the Dec. 7-18 U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen.

Ed Miliband, Britain's climate change secretary, on Thursday called those challenging the mainstream scientific view on climate change irresponsible and dangerous.

"We have to beware of the climate saboteurs, the people who want to say this is somehow in doubt, and want to cast aspersions on the whole process," Miliband told reporters.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives want hearings on the matter, with U.S. lawmaker James Sensenbrenner arguing that the e-mails show the world needs to re-examine experts' claims that the science on warming is settled.

Sensenbrenner, a Republican lawmaker from Wisconsin, read out loud some of Jones' e-mail messages at a hearing Wednesday in Washington, including one in which Jones wrote about a "trick of adding in the real temps" in an exchange about long-term climate trends. Another of Jones' e-mails reads, "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right."

Scientists called before House's climate change committee countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the earth is warming.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She said the e-mails don't negate or even deal with data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which keep independent climate records that show dramatic global warming.

In London, Miliband said he had read some of the leaked East Anglia e-mails, but insisted sections which appear to show that scientists had manipulated data, or attempted to suppress contradictory evidence, had been largely taken out of context.

"One chain of e-mails does not undo scientific consensus which is broadly based and relatively universal," Miliband said.

The University of East Anglia's investigation comes in addition to a probe by Penn State University, which is also examining e-mails by its own researcher, Michael Mann.

East Anglia said former civil servant Muir Russell would lead the inquiry. Russell said he "has no links to either the university or the climate science community."

The university has asked that the review be completed by spring 2010.
On the Net:

* Climatic Research Unit: www.cru.uea.ac.uk...


[edit on 3-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
We have learned from the Clinton's to "never waste a good crisis" and we aren't.
The poster above is right the mag being tied to their network and biased.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by loner007
 


Riiiight, we forgot that "trickeries" are done not to deceive other people....


The AGW zombies will make every excuse for their masters that they can find, and what they usually do is close their eyes really tight, cover their ears really tight with their hands as they yell "na na na nana, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!".....


From the sidelines, you sound like you're having the same reactions. AGW zombies & paranoid delusionists! You're both crazy!



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Riiight, who is to forget, the AGW proponents dumped their data files for most of the last 150 years....

oh and of course they LOVE to post articles from NEWSPAPERS which try to dismiss the emails, and the statements made by the "REAL KOOKS" who happen to be Mann et al....

Phew yeah, they proved the emails are fakes, and do not undermine the claims of warming when the Kooks, Mann, Jones etc state QUITE CLEARLY they cannot understand why it hasn't been warmer when it should be....among their other trickster tactics to try to keep their religion alive...



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Until you can prove that those scientists manipulated data, then you're only propagating the same form of religion/cult status that you're criticising.

The tune needs to change. All I hear is "attack, attack, attack," towards the other side, and then whinging when the other side responds similarly. Conduct yourself more realisticly & more appropriately and search for complete answers instead of speculating the blanks.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by john124]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by rexusdiablos
 


These people that say these names, have probably never been right in there lifes.

No such thing as global warming period, and plenty of well repected scientists, say so, and there data is ignored, and thats a fact.

Calling people names is just showing these people are having problems speaking any truths.

Why bother, if these people are so great and there brain and attitude is great, do they need to call people names.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


The emails prove it, but of course except to die hard AGW proponents such as yourself who won't admit to anything....

As far as i know NO ONE, in their right minds and this includes the scientists who were part of the email leak, has come forth to claim the emails are fake. That in itself shows the emails are true, otherwise they would be suing for defamation of character, libel etc, etc....

Instead what NEWSPAPERS, and some blogs CLAIM is that "they meant to say something else of course".....


Sorry to say that your party has ended, and it has ended bad for you.





[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Agw is just a religion now, you either have faith in it, or you think is absolutely rubbish.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Sorry, but the emails do not prove data manipulation, and that's what you need to prove, and not that scientists called sceptics silly names which is no more than you do towards these scientists.


East Anglia said former civil servant Muir Russell would lead the inquiry. Russell said he "has no links to either the university or the climate science community."

The university has asked that the review be completed by spring 2010.


This inquiry will be more valid than your opinion on this issue.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by john124
............
This inquiry will be more valid than your opinion on this issue.


A civil servant from one of the nations which has been pushing for the AGW taxes, and globalization is going to be more valid than the FACT that all you people can come up with is claim "they meant to say something else"?....


Oh yeah...that is going to be an unbiased inquiry.....


[edit on 3-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033
Agw is just a religion now, you either have faith in it, or you think is absolutely rubbish.


But the basic belief of all religions can not currently be disproven, so that's not a healthy analogy because people will argue their opinion for their religious beliefs probably forever and ever.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Religions are based ONLY on FAITH, not on fact, and evidence, and science requires FACTS and EVIDENCE not FAITH....



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Apparently, denial isn't working.
We have one person stepping down. -Progress-

I want to see the rest of them step down and into prison for collusion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next ice age is on the way.
We can't slow it down or stop it.
The planet Earth is following its own geological clock.
The billions of people on Earth are just along for the ride.
All people who truly fear ice ages should move to the moon.
There are no ice ages there and there is a great view of the Earth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This was never about global warming.
This is all about fear and control.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I'm beginning to believe that the energy crisis is a scam designed to bolster profits through fear.

I have been trying to license ideas to companies that will lower startup costs of "green" energy generation farms enough to make it affordable for the average person to create all of their own electricity in the very near future.

The first person or two at each company gets excited, but when they come back from meeting with their handlers, this once great idea that had him drooling days before, is suddenly the business equivalent of the black plague.

There is plenty of money to be made from this idea, by the corporation who picks it up, but people in high positions of these companies seem to have no interest, even when their own marketing and design people do.

They know something that the general public does not.



posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If a picture tells a thousand words, a video should serve as a second line.




posted on Dec, 3 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ashamedamerican
 


I knew a farmer in Illinois that switched to wind power to generate power for his irrigation system. The govt. responded to his conversion to "green" electricity by taxing the hell out of him for using alternate power sources. It was cheaper to go through the coal burning electric company instead of utilizing the wind. I guess the govt decided they own mother nature too.

The Govt. doesn't care about the earth or the people on it. In the end it's about the almighty $.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join