Was the Goracle wrong?

[Damocles]

You keep going back to CRU. What does that have to do with the price of fish. I'm not asking anyone to defend CRU, I'm asking them for data to defend their position not data that confirms or refutes CRU's crediblity. I'll even give you that CRU's credibility is severly damaged but what does that have to do with their position opposing anthropogenic climate change. What evidenced and data do they have supporting their position? Discrediting CRU does not substantiate their position. That's not how science works. In science just because you're wrong doesn't mean I'm right. That may work in politics but in Science it may damned well be that both sides are wrong. Show me the data!

One more time for the slow.

We find out through their own communications that they silenced opposition (very unscientific of them). Saying, "Where is the opposition?" when it was purposefully buried, and we have evidence of it, is ridiculous. Kind of like asking for the government approved pro-jewish documents from Iran. They don't exist, anybody taking that position were silenced, often lost their jobs (Weather Channel dude, State of Washington dude..) their very livelihoods threatened because they spoke out against the "consensus".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Good news guys. I have come up with The unifying Theory in Physics. I worked it all out last night. I am not going to show you any of my raw data though. You will just have to take my word for it. And anyone that says otherwise is just a UT denier.

LOL Socr, It's nice to see that someone sees my point!

By the way...I have a similiar theory about unmatched socks in the dryer.

 

[Damocles]

Good news guys. I have come up with The unifying Theory in Physics. I worked it all out last night. I am not going to show you any of my raw data though. You will just have to take my word for it. And anyone that says otherwise is just a UT denier.

Exactly my point, SOC.

Mott, where are the peer-reviewed papers against Soc's theory?

 

[Topspin]

come on hasn't Goracle been predicting the earth would fry for 20 yrs?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/con...7/prominent-scientists-debunk-global-warming/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/...Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1421/...the-authors-and-NOAAMisrepresents-the-science

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html

There is a REASON they hide their data.... but until they release ALL of the RAW DATA... we may not know for sure what it is. What we do know is that it goes against the basic scientific methods of peer review.... you know actually CHECKING THE RAW DATA

There is a REASON they now call it 'global climate change' rather than 'global warming'

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Who's blindly following anyone? Your the one who is expecting me to believe your position is the correct one with out providing me any data. OK, CRU is fucked up. So what have you got? So far you've shown nothing and you're expecting me to blindly follow you? Aint happening son.

YOU are blindly following the other idiots that shout 'peer review' or 'consensus'.

Period.

My position is that these fear mongers are full of shit. The FACT that they hide their data is a large part of the reason for my skepticism. The FACT that they continue to try to pretend 'the debate is over' adds to my skepticism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is inane. The point is that the "peer-review" process specifically is now under suspicion because people silenced opposition and refuse to allow review of data and you say, "Well show me peer-review..."

It would be like, "Show me the government approved pro-religious documents in the USSR!" back before the wall fell...

Damo, that's just ONE SOURCE! CRU lacks crediblity on the issue of demonstrating anthropogenic climate change due to fudging figure but you're then trying to make the illogical leap that the entire scientific peer review process has completely broken down all together? That's laughable. Hell, it's the peer review process that identified the scandal in the first place. Again, your notion that the entire peer review process has broken down is a joke and has nothing to do with proving their point. CRU was trying to demonstrate evidence for anthropegenic climate change. Why would you go to them for peer reviewed data that anthropogenic climate change is not occuring in the first place? You're dancing on the head of a pin trying to have me take the opposite position on faith with out providing andy data. That's just silly.

 

[tinfoil]

What is your vested interest that ya'll provide these stories without regard to the science? I mean, I could give a flying F for what Al Gore has to say, but there is substantial amounts of legitimate peer reviewed science on climactic change and ya'll completely disregard it. Instead you politicise it with out making an honest attempt to even understand the issue or it's consequence. I'm about to put you guys in the same same league as anti-science cranks like Dixie and PiMP and the rest of the flat earther, creationist crowd.

Instead of copying and pasting your political editorials on the subject how about linking us to some peer reviewed science that support the position you are taking. Now I intend that comment more for you SF as I know Topper would site the US Petroleum Institute as his source, which is why no one takes Topper serious on this topic. We know he has a vested commercial interest in the continued use of petroleum and could really care less about what the actual scientific conclusions are.

LOL peer reviewed!! Yeah, dumbass, that really makes a huge difference when the scientists are corrupt

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL Socr, It's nice to see that someone sees my point!

By the way...I have a similiar theory about unmatched socks in the dryer.

You are so blinded you cannot even see that Soc is not agreeing with you?

He stated what we did... that it is quite silly for a Scientist to make an assertion and then REFUSING to release the RAW data used to support the assertion.

 

[Topspin]

We are on a recent trend of higher Arctic ice maximums, which is a fact that is rarely if ever reported by the main stream media.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

One more time for the slow.

We find out through their own communications that they silenced opposition (very unscientific of them). Saying, "Where is the opposition?" when it was purposefully buried, and we have evidence of it, is ridiculous. Kind of like asking for the government approved pro-jewish documents from Iran. They don't exist, anybody taking that position were silenced, often lost their jobs (Weather Channel dude, State of Washington dude..) their very livelihoods threatened because they spoke out against the "consensus".

and one more time....r e a l s l o w...... What does this have to do with SF's and Topper's position? How does that validate it? CRU may have tried to silcence critics but failed to so. There is no arguing that the activities of CRU have seriously damaged the crediblity of those whom use their data as evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. OK, so they lack credibility, what does that have to do with the opposing side? The fact that CRU lacks crediblity does not make opponents of anthropogenc climate change correct. It only means that CRU is wrong. To argue otherwise is poor science in the extreme. It might make good politics but it's piss poor science.

 

[Damocles]

and one more time....r e a l s l o w...... What does this have to do with SF's and Topper's position? How does that validate it? CRU may have tried to silcence critics but failed to so. There is no arguing that the activities of CRU have seriously damaged the crediblity of those whom use their data as evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. OK, so they lack credibility, what does that have to do with the opposing side? The fact that CRU lacks crediblity does not make opponents of anthropogenc climate change correct. It only means that CRU is wrong. To argue otherwise is poor science in the extreme. It might make good politics but it's piss poor science.

SF gave you a list of links.

And your opinion that they were unsuccessful is not backed up by the actual evidence. Can you show me how they were unsuccessful in their ability to keep any opposition from being on your "approved" list?

All the "peer-review" is under suspicion because they all use data that has been supplemented and the raw data hidden, their critics were silenced and we read how by their own communications and you ask for what? The government-approved pro-Israeli documents from the Palestinian authority? Come on, Mott. You can do better than this.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

YOU are blindly following the other idiots that shout 'peer review' or 'consensus'.

Period.

My position is that these fear mongers are full of shit. The FACT that they hide their data is a large part of the reason for my skepticism. The FACT that they continue to try to pretend 'the debate is over' adds to my skepticism.

No I'm not. I'm just showing that you are just as guilty as they are. You're doing the exact same thing they are to support your view. Again, I'm taking no position here. I'm stathing that just because CRU lacks credibility on anthropogenic climate change does not demonstrate your crediblilty in denying it. All's your telling me is CRU is wrong therefore I am right. That's a bullshit argument. I'm only asking you to show me the data that defends your position and so far I'm getting rhetorical arguments but no data. If your so confident in your position that anthropogenic climate change is not occuring provide me the data that defends your position. Is that to much to ask?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

and one more time....r e a l s l o w...... What does this have to do with SF's and Topper's position? How does that validate it? CRU may have tried to silcence critics but failed to so. There is no arguing that the activities of CRU have seriously damaged the crediblity of those whom use their data as evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. OK, so they lack credibility, what does that have to do with the opposing side? The fact that CRU lacks crediblity does not make opponents of anthropogenc climate change correct. It only means that CRU is wrong. To argue otherwise is poor science in the extreme. It might make good politics but it's piss poor science.

The PISS POOR science comes from TWO of the leading data centers used by the global warming fear mongers. Both NASA and the CRU consistently refuse FOIA requests for the data used to support their positions.

THAT is MY position. That they are full of shit. There is no legitimate scientific reason for the failure to release the raw data.

Now do go take a look at those links.

 

[Damocles]

No I'm not. I'm just showing that you are just as guilty as they are. You're doing the exact same thing they are to support your view. Again, I'm taking no position here. I'm stathing that just because CRU lacks credibility on anthropogenic climate change does not demonstrate your crediblilty in denying it. All's your telling me is CRU is wrong therefore I am right. That's a bullshit argument. I'm only asking you to show me the data that defends your position and so far I'm getting rhetorical arguments but no data. If your so confident in your position that anthropogenic climate change is not occuring provide me the data that defends your position. Is that to much to ask?

Which of my posts denied climate change? That is your own straw man. I deny their "peer-review" status based on the fact that they do not give the information that would be required for a peer-review and silenced opposition. That everybody uses that data for this "science" doesn't help even a little bit to buttress an argument for AGW based on its "peer-review" status.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

SF gave you a list of links.

And your opinion that they were unsuccessful is not backed up by the actual evidence. Can you show me how they were unsuccessful in their ability to keep any opposition from being on your "approved" list?

All the "peer-review" is under suspicion because they all use data that has been supplemented and the raw data hidden, their critics were silenced and we read how by their own communications and you ask for what? The government-approved pro-Israeli documents from the Palestinian authority? Come on, Mott. You can do better than this.

Damo, are you being obtuse? Peer review is always under suspicion even when the scienitist involved aren't doing something unethical like fudging their figures such as CRU is being accused of. You can't discount the entire scientific peer review process because of that. That's just plain silly.

 

[Damocles]

Damo, are you being obtuse? Peer review is always under suspicion even when the scienitist involved aren't doing something unethical like fudging their figures such as CRU is being accused of. You can't discount the entire scientific peer review process because of that. That's just plain silly.

When did I say I discounted that?

I said I discounted this particular science's peer-review status. You are just making crap up now and trying to argue that. Funny that you accused me of "strawman".

I said, I can't believe that other scientific areas of study are not screaming that this particular science follow the actual method so that their procedures and methods don't also come into question. You proceeded to work to defend them and ask for other "peer-review" that you know doesn't exist because it was silenced.

If this is the standard you want to defend, then you are only harming yourself. By all means take up that flag, fight that battle. But seriously, this is what you want to defend? If these are the standards that you hold "science" to, then there are no standards.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

LOL peer reviewed!! Yeah, dumbass, that really makes a huge difference when the scientists are corrupt

Translation, since I'm ignorant of science and scince a couple of scientist were unethical, even though that behavior was discovered and published by other scientist then all of science is now discredited and I can now feel free to rationalise what ever it is I want to believe. Yea...that's a sound argument Tinhead.

 

[Socrtease]

How about all climate scientists on both sides post ALL their raw data so that others can access it and create their own models and see if the results are repeated? What would be so wrong with that?

 

[Damocles]

How about all climate scientists on both sides post ALL their raw data so that others can access it and create their own models and see if the results are repeated? What would be so wrong with that?

Exactly.