Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Nov 20, 2009.

Page 3 of 18
  1. Tigerbnd05

    Tigerbnd05 National Champs 2003 2007

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    69
    No... he scouring the internet for sources to prove everything said here is wrong. He'll be back when he finds the sources to back his argument.:rolleye33:



    My guess is we wil be waiting a while.
     
    Tigerbnd05, Nov 24, 2009
    #21
  2. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    id like to expand on your qualifying reference to "macro science". much of the research done in areas like macro-evolution, geology and astronomy are substantially limited by the fact that the scale (often both time and size) are too big to allow for maximum confidence.

    it is not the fault of the researchers, just a limitation of the questions asked.

    in micro/molecular fields (chemistry, biochemistry, physics, molecular biology), conclusions drawn can more often be at near certainty because experiments can be done in controlled conditions (to limit variables) and repeated. a major check in place is that those that disagree can try to repeat the experiment. many erroneous conclusions (both intentional and accidental) are discovered this way eventually.
     
    gumborue, Nov 24, 2009
    #22
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    What legs? Only among the same critics who keep trying to come up with something that magically makes all science invalid. This ain't it, you know. But you want me to address it? Sure. It gives you a chance to deliver another informative and intellectual, "You are full of crap" response.

    Tell me, which of the many technical papers confirming climate change does these stolen emails invalidate? Did they expose any bad data in their published papers? No. They informally discussed the method one scientist chose to publish his data.

    Most of the critical articles take the statements completely out of context and suggest that the scientists are deviously manipulating the data, even though nothing that they say is hidden, since all their methodologies are published in the technical papers.


    Also scientists use the word "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something", not to indicate a deception.

    If a decline has been "hidden" it is hiding in plain sight.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #23
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Ahh, the third grade is still with us. Have you seen Waldo, yet?

    Watch and learn. No substance here at all.

    The peanut gallery cheers yet another failed attempt to discredit all of science. The gullibility of the political skeptics never fails to astonish me.
     
    red55, Nov 24, 2009
    #24
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,326
    Likes Received:
    575
    Whew, you had me worried!:lol:
    It was bad enough when Elvis left the building!:dis::cry:
    I'll take my peanuts with chocolate please!:insane:
     
    Sourdoughman, Nov 24, 2009
    #25
  6. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    wow! i had no idea this was part of the evidence of a scam. how stupid is that?!
     
    gumborue, Nov 24, 2009
    #26
  7. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Bloviate all you want Red. Your beloved scientists have been busted. It doesn't end here. Hell of a backstroke you've got there, though.
     
    SabanFan, Nov 24, 2009
    #27
  8. jibboo

    jibboo Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    13
    From the IPCC is filled with crap "science" file....



    So... if the IPCC's goal wasn't science... WTF was it's goals?

    Nope. No substance here. Nothing to see. Move along. Ignore the man behind the curtain. You are not seeing what you are seeing.
     
    jibboo, Nov 24, 2009
    #28
  9. jibboo

    jibboo Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    13
    How's this for IPCC "consensus"?

    The hits keep coming...
     
    jibboo, Nov 24, 2009
    #29
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    these people literally believe they may be saving the world, so why wouldnt they fudge the numbers a bit?
     
    martin, Nov 24, 2009
    #30
Page 3 of 18

Share This Page