1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Climategate!

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by NeilFawcett, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    "There are people who, instead of listening to what is being said to them, are already listening to what they are going to say themselves."

    A Guinon.
     
  2. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Time to start listening then. Temperature linked to sea ice, blimey, what an insight that is.
     
  3. hola_adios

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 1,887

    Location: On the road

    I wish this thread died to be honest, by now it has turned into something painful to watch. How someone so far from the scientific method turns observations and hypothesis into certainty and theories.
     
  4. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    No its actually quite good actually.

    How someone so far from the scientific method turns observations and hypothesis into certainty and theories

    To whom are you addressing this comment, the scientific community perhaps or someone in particular.

    Co2/Methane are indeed GHGs and thats a FACT and as the atmosphere now has 110 parts per million more than it did 250 years ago then its resulting in warming of the atmosphere, the oceans and the worlds ice. What is a mystery there I wonder?
     
  5. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,006

    No one would reasonably argue that methane and co2 aren't GHG. No one would argue that co2 concentrations havent increased. There is even a reasonably high degree of certainty that it's getting warmer. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? The answer to that is far too complicated to be called settled even if the consensus agrees.

    Einstien theories were denounced by a large number of nazi scientists his answer was that if he was wrong the numbers don't matter it would only take one. The consensus is not evidence or proof. If all that was claimed is that manmade GHG is the most likely source I could live with it more than the current religious dogma that surrounds warming.
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2011
  6. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Michael Crichton said:

    "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." ...

    never did that quotation seem so apt.
     
  7. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    What would Crichton know? Theories once given that status become consensus. Quantum physics and relativity too a long time and work by many to be given consensus status. ACC was first postulated in 1859 and itself taken a long time to have that consensual status
     
  8. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Well, he beat Gavin Schmidt and his team in the Intelligence Squared debate on Is Global Warming a Crisis?

    So that would suggest that he knew enough and I suspect significantly more that you.

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/

    http://intelligencesquaredus.org/wp-content/uploads/GlobalWarming-edited-version-031407.pdf
     
  9. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Dont be silly Castiel. Crichton is known to have been incorrect on ACC but from your perspevtive and the sources you read no doubt a winner but not in my book.
     
  10. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Actually whether he was right or wrong has no baring on the validity of the quote or that Real Climate founder Gavin Schmidt conceded many points to him in the debate which you obviously haven't watched or read the transcript otherwise you would not have made such a silly comment regarding what Michael Crichton believed.

    You are showing your ignorance and inability to see beyond your fanatical belief structure predicated by a small section of the scientific community once again Cosmogenesis. I think that Hola is right and the fact that you had to ask to whom he addressed his comment speaks volumes.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2011
  11. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    I followed it then and from i remember of it the against lost the argument but it did not mean they are incorrect. Your ongoing impression of me is funny, temper, temper now Castiel. That debate has no bearing on ACC at all, it's idiotic of you to think otherwise. It just means that science is hard to argue to normal people.
     
  12. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Who is losing their temper? :confused:

    Ironic calling me an idiot don't you think. And the arrogance of your post knows no bounds, are you seriously saying that normal people (whoever they are) cannot understand Science? I assume that you must be a PhD Scientist then....are you?


    "A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  13. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    I said idiotic and in no way called anyone an idiot. That debate was irrelevant in the science of ACC but maybe more relevant in arguing the toss about politics and how denial works in the human mind.
     
  14. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    You said I was idiotic which is tantamount to calling me an idiot.

    Ironic that you mention denial in the human mind, as you are the one most guilty of it.:D

    Answer the question, are you a Scientist? Who are these normal people who cannot possibly understand scientific hypothesis?
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  15. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Wittering on again about scientific hypothesis eh castiel. Experts in the field of their subject take years to become knowledgeable so a 1 hour debate regarding ACC is certainly not enough time to explain the reality of the subject. Crichton is a successful film maker and writer and hence would know a lot of more about getting his point across in a short space of time. All subjects can have sound bites but few scientists have the emotional intelligence to convince peopel of theirs. Its not what they do, peer review is a tough place where your peers judge you on humourless material so I do suggest that the public at large little understand the science but they do like a debate on these subjects which some people are better at than others so it comes as no surprise to me that Crichton and others convince people of their position even when its incorrect as it is in his case.

    Idiotic is not idiot and in the context I used it it came no where near calling you one but if you want to carry on assuming I did call you one then feel free.

    ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!! You must answer me, I am in command - lol. No Castiel I am not scientist, just a bloke with has a degree and appreciates science.
     
  16. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Grow up. If you have a science degree it just illustrates the poor state that education is currently in.

    It has been shown categorically by numerous people in this thread that you clearly have no idea what the scientific method is, how to judge the difference between a hypothesis or theory, or even what the scientific definition of those terms are.

    You have no basis or standing to judge anyone in this thread or the world at large and frankly even those you seek to worship would find you an embarassment to their cause.

    When you finally decide to act like an adult and gain even a modicum of understanding of the terminology you so flippantly throw around then maybe you may hold some interest, until then you
    are merely ill-educated, rude, ill-informed and infantile and no doubt you will make some further childish comment which will illustrate my point.

    Frankly I think this thread has become pointless and as Hola Adios pointed out it needs to be locked.

    Maybe if a Don is reviewing this they could take it into consideration. The original Climategate topic is largely over now and this thread stiffles real discussion on the subject.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2011
  17. clv101

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 9,894

    Location: Bristol

    If you're both unsatisfied with the thread.... stop posting to it? :)
     
  18. Judgeneo

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 15, 2010

    Posts: 10,013

    Location: Out of Coventry

    This, there hasn't been any true debate or evidence presented in this thread for a while now.

    Since this thread is about Climategate, I thought I'd post this article:

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/08/06/the-guardian-is-bemused/


    Raises concerns about the recent media hacking scandals and the climate gate scandal. Interesting read, even if there was no real conclusion.
     
  19. Castiel

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: Jun 26, 2010

    Posts: 63,651

    Even when you do post relevant stuff as I have in recent days, certain people see it as an excuse to attack you.

    The thread is dead, it simply doesn't serve its original purpose any longer.
     
  20. cosmogenesis

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 15, 2007

    Posts: 2,945

    Happy to see it locked then then speakers corner will not have to suffer you on ACC.

    That take on Crichton was absurd.