B
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
- Status
Climategate, I think they called it. Show me the graph in full degrees.
If you think climategate is about lies or deception... you're completely misinformed, and have a lot of learning yet to do. Bet you're one of those who thinks they "hid a decline in temperature"... Educate yourself. Nobody lied about anything, and the entire process was detailed IN the paper which was submitted.
That's why they were exonerated after investigation, and then exonerated again and again after a couple more investigations.
You're confused about "statistically significant" too. Stop falling for denier mind tricks.
You're obviously not ever going to reason or be reasonable... You are going to cling to your comfortable ignorance, and I'm done debunking the same shit over and over... Anyone who is ACTUALLY wanting to learn more about the issue knows where to look www.skepticalscience.com... just type a relevant keyword in the search box... No need for any further 'whack a mole' on my part...
Keep your head in the sand, I could care less if you choose to ignore it... your ignorance of the facts doesn't render them inert.
If you want the truth you need to dig deeper than you have and gather more background information, and the ability to determine credibility of sources... Or don't, if you're happy with your self professed confusion.
Last edited:
B
Ben Tokin
Oh, don't be so sensitive, H3ad. If you knew me in real life you would understand that I question everything and everybody. You would also realize that I know how little is understood about the world we live in.
There is lot of information about some subjects that never sees the light of day. There are people who portray themselves as more important than they really are and there are some who purposely downplay their role in life.
I don't really have an agenda or a political philosophy or many convictions for that matter. I'm an observer and one who makes an attempt to view the world and it's inhabitants with as little bias as possible.
I believe everyone has the right to make up their own mind and be as independent as possible.
sac beh
Member
'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis
This paper is long, and goes into a detailed analysis of blogs, media and political portrayals of "climategate", showing these portrayals to be based on fundamental anti-science viewpoints and rhetorical-persuasive techniques, rather than on any real evidence that there was a scandal or that the science of AGW is damaged in any way.
It also isn't an opinion piece in the proper sense, but rather a work of research published in a peer-reviewed journal edited and read by people who do serious investigation of these topics. Here are some good excerpts immediately relevant:
Source: Environmental Values, Volume 19, Number 4, November 2010 , pp. 419-442(24) (a peer-reviewed journal)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...dR2LMwreQ&sig2=MYayW6_lYil2y7kIEKCmmQ&cad=rja
This paper is long, and goes into a detailed analysis of blogs, media and political portrayals of "climategate", showing these portrayals to be based on fundamental anti-science viewpoints and rhetorical-persuasive techniques, rather than on any real evidence that there was a scandal or that the science of AGW is damaged in any way.
It also isn't an opinion piece in the proper sense, but rather a work of research published in a peer-reviewed journal edited and read by people who do serious investigation of these topics. Here are some good excerpts immediately relevant:
Source: Environmental Values, Volume 19, Number 4, November 2010 , pp. 419-442(24) (a peer-reviewed journal)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...dR2LMwreQ&sig2=MYayW6_lYil2y7kIEKCmmQ&cad=rja
but Ben, it is seeming that here, you are not questioning everything and everybody.
not genuinely, anyhow... not with a willingness to dig deep and suss out the evidence from the rhetoric... It seems you are demonizing agw acknowledgers and excusing agw deniers.
that's why I'm done discussing it with you. nothing to do with being sensitive, just about being practical. All the information I could show you is your finger tips, I don't need to spoon feed you if you're unwilling to dig in earnest.
not genuinely, anyhow... not with a willingness to dig deep and suss out the evidence from the rhetoric... It seems you are demonizing agw acknowledgers and excusing agw deniers.
that's why I'm done discussing it with you. nothing to do with being sensitive, just about being practical. All the information I could show you is your finger tips, I don't need to spoon feed you if you're unwilling to dig in earnest.
Just look at this argument. It's chalk full of facts and info is it not? Facts like "ignore", and "dig deeper" just makes me want to convert to this religion. It's obviously a religion because there hasn't been one fact cited by this person for over a week. It's a spiritual thing I see. Facts need not get in the way of reality.
LOL
This long winded BS is the same as a liberal/progressive calling a someone who disagrees with obama a racist.
No facts, but just enough crap to stop the argument. Crap doesn't work with me. If you want to cite facts, please do so. Otherwise, global cooling it is.
pathetic.
B
Ben Tokin
Actually, I admire your tenacity. I'm also impressed with the self-control and level of judgement everyone displayed in this thread. It's can be quite a hot-button issue at times, so it goes to show that even controversial topics such as this can be discussed here without the usual displays of intolerance.
Well, I guess this thread is well done. Nothing to see here folks.
Next?
So? We may be fucked! But until the temperature goes HIGHER than +8...it is part of the NATURAL warming and cooling cycle. Why is that so fucking HARD to understand? Yes, it's a BIG fucking problem for us humans...but it's a NATURAL problem that HAS happened in the past...and the EFFECTS of the warming is what we have to deal with...not TRYING to stop something that is a natural fucking cycle!!!
What's next? You don't want LA to get cold so you're going to try to stop plate tectonics?
Changing the entire planets economy and source of energy in an attempt to stop global warming at this point...before we KNOW there IS a "problem" is insane. We're at +4 from some arbitrary median...records show we regularly reach +8 in a typical warming period...WHERE is the fucking PROBLEM?
Do you realize what you are asking for? Going back to the 1800s. Nobody is going to agree to that. Work on SOLUTIONS to a warming planet...not a fools errand of trying to stop a natural process. It's harder than trying to stop a volcano from erupting. And that erupting volcano can easily put out more than people do in a year.
You're fighting a losing battle...the EARTH is changing naturally, warming naturally, it's been doing it for the last 10,000 years...the warming is continuing...naturally. It's fruitless to try to stop a natural earth wide event. Second...nobody wants to step down a few notches in standard of living. They won't do it willingly. Everyone is trying to RAISE their standard of living. You're going against a strong flow...good luck with that.
I try to be as objective as possible myself.
B
Ben Tokin
H
HippyJohnny
Facts backfire
Facts backfire
Unfortunately no matter how gingerly we try to keep the politics out of this thread... clearly there is linkage.
Full Article .. excerpt below
Sure seems to echo and validate my personal experiences about trying to discuss MMJ with non-believers so to speak.
I think this is very interesting.
Peace
Facts backfire
Unfortunately no matter how gingerly we try to keep the politics out of this thread... clearly there is linkage.
Full Article .. excerpt below
Sure seems to echo and validate my personal experiences about trying to discuss MMJ with non-believers so to speak.
I think this is very interesting.
Peace
I'm not worried about the planet, I'm worried about the humans.
sac beh
Member
The accusation that AGW is a religion or that those who present evidence of AGW are religious is fully explained in the above journal article as a merely rhetorical argument based in confusions of terms and fields of study. Thanks for demonstrating this sociological-political phenomenon.
“Impartial” inquiry descends into farce
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Feb 15th, 2010
The so called “independent” investigation into the climategate emails scandal has descended into farce before it is barely off the ground as a third member of the six man panel has been revealed to hold strong views on human induced climate change.
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Professor Boulton, who was officially appointed to the investigative team by civil servant Sir Muir Russell, has also written numerous articles indicating a strong belief in anthropogenic warming.
In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was “over”.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who signed a statement in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
The statement read:
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
Boulton’s views clearly contradict the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
Boulton told The London Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”
As if that wasn’t enough, Boulton actually worked at the University of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences – where the Climate Research Unit (CRU) is housed – for 18 years until 1986. His biography on the “independent” commission website fails to mention this fact.
The controversy comes within hours of the resignation of another member of the so called “impartial” panel. Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature magazine, stood down on Thursday, after it was disclosed he had previously given an interview in which he defended the actions of researchers at the CRU.
Campbell had been a member of the panel for just six hours when his statement dating from December 2009 was cited, in which he said:
“The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the e-mails there are one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact, the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”
Both cases come as little surprise, given that the head of the “investigation”, Muir Russell, is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe.
While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
The head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson has issued the following statement regarding the lack of impartiality of the investigative panel:
“As the first person to call for an independent inquiry into ‘climategate’, I regret that what has been announced today is defective in a number of ways. The inquiry will wholly lack transparency, with the hearings held in private, and no transcripts to be published.
The terms of reference, while better than nothing, are inadequate in a number of ways, not least the failure to include the question of the efforts made by CRU scientists to prevent the publication of papers by dissenting scientists and others, contrary to the canons of scientific integrity. And the objectivity and independence of the inquiry is seriously called into question by the composition of Sir Muir Russell’s team, in particular the Editor in Chief of Nature, who has already published an editorial on the matter strongly supportive of the CRU scientists and accusing their critics of being ‘paranoid’.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate...sh-third-panel-member-exposed-as-warmist.html
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Feb 15th, 2010
The so called “independent” investigation into the climategate emails scandal has descended into farce before it is barely off the ground as a third member of the six man panel has been revealed to hold strong views on human induced climate change.
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Professor Boulton, who was officially appointed to the investigative team by civil servant Sir Muir Russell, has also written numerous articles indicating a strong belief in anthropogenic warming.
In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was “over”.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who signed a statement in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
The statement read:
We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
Boulton’s views clearly contradict the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”.
Boulton told The London Times: “I may be rapped over the knuckles by Sir Muir for saying this, but I think that statement needs to be clarified. I think the committee needs someone like me who is close to the field of climate change and it would be quite amazing if that person didn’t have a view on one side or the other.”
As if that wasn’t enough, Boulton actually worked at the University of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences – where the Climate Research Unit (CRU) is housed – for 18 years until 1986. His biography on the “independent” commission website fails to mention this fact.
The controversy comes within hours of the resignation of another member of the so called “impartial” panel. Dr Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature magazine, stood down on Thursday, after it was disclosed he had previously given an interview in which he defended the actions of researchers at the CRU.
Campbell had been a member of the panel for just six hours when his statement dating from December 2009 was cited, in which he said:
“The scientists have not hidden the data. If you look at the e-mails there are one or two bits of language that are jargon used between professionals that suggest something to outsiders that is wrong. In fact, the only problem there has been is on some official restrictions on their ability to disseminate data. Otherwise they have behaved as researchers should.”
Both cases come as little surprise, given that the head of the “investigation”, Muir Russell, is a member of one of the most vehemently pro man-made global warming advocacy organizations in Europe.
While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.
This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
A February 2009 response to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill outlines the organization’s staunch advocacy for the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.
The head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in Britain, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson has issued the following statement regarding the lack of impartiality of the investigative panel:
“As the first person to call for an independent inquiry into ‘climategate’, I regret that what has been announced today is defective in a number of ways. The inquiry will wholly lack transparency, with the hearings held in private, and no transcripts to be published.
The terms of reference, while better than nothing, are inadequate in a number of ways, not least the failure to include the question of the efforts made by CRU scientists to prevent the publication of papers by dissenting scientists and others, contrary to the canons of scientific integrity. And the objectivity and independence of the inquiry is seriously called into question by the composition of Sir Muir Russell’s team, in particular the Editor in Chief of Nature, who has already published an editorial on the matter strongly supportive of the CRU scientists and accusing their critics of being ‘paranoid’.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate...sh-third-panel-member-exposed-as-warmist.html
Here's a big secret that I'll let you in on. When you read a book or an article, when you watch a TV show, when someone is giving a presention....we all fall into a state of either semi or total hypnosis. Sound like fiction? It's completely true! The mind must create all of the images itself in order to understand the material.
When the brain creates these images over and over again each time we read or hear about them, it becomes a mental reality. It may be completely untrue, but it becomes part of our reality because our brain has recorded it.
This is the technique used by religions, TV and radio commercials, books, newspaper article, even the internet. The more we are exposed to these ideas, even though they may be completely untrue, the more they become part of our reality.
Think about this the next time you read an article, a book or hear a commercial. You are being programmed to think and act in a way that you may have no control over. We begin to see and hear things in our daily routines that seem to reinforce these ideas. We are now a victim of the system that is designed to control our thoughts and our behavior.
The only way to avoid being a victim of the propagandists that are out there trying to control you, is to question and require proof of everything. Never believe anything you hear or read, and only half of what you see!
LOL... How Ironically funny that you should post this... I agree with the above statement and my application of it is why I laugh at your arguments.
I've gone back and looked at your posts on this site (both this thread and others, what's up with posting stupid links to other sites). IMHO you're a political shill that has absolutely no interest in cannabis... smoking or growing it and has only come on here for political reasons.
Too bad... you're agreeing with one right now. Ben Tokin is nothing more than a paid political propagandist.
Spin is all he's been dong in this thread.
Done already with the public option health care debate. Lies were all your side had.
Sometimes... usually not, usually one side is being totally disingenuous (like you are)
LOSER...Then, come back to this thread and tell us all about your convictions. Later!
Last edited:
You may lol at prisonplanet.com H3ad but its a very popular website and one of the flag carriers for the alternative media. Ron Paul, Gerard Celente, Jesse Ventura, and many other icons and people WAY ahead of the curve are regular guests and contributers.
You will attack the source but not the message? Typical.
Where are these Monkton emails and the "Methods and Materials" from that piece of psuedoscience you posted up?
You will attack the source but not the message? Typical.
Where are these Monkton emails and the "Methods and Materials" from that piece of psuedoscience you posted up?
maryj315
Member
What this tells me is you are looking for a different Point Of View rather than seeking facts.
I have no doubt they are popular there is also a cable news channel that has high ratings for the same reasons. They both offer a different Point Of View rather seeking facts.
You can put up all the evidence you want, unless it is embraced by their establishment, they will continue to seek a different Point Of View. Facts are not revellent when you are fighting for your freedom. At least that is how they see it.
Mj
Facts are pesky things... of which we all draw from the same well.
- Status
