James Randi's comment on AGW

  • News
  • Thread starter seycyrus
  • Start date
  • #51
seycyrus
well over-used climategate card that many politicians are loving (mostly American I've noticed).
It is not over-used. It is a fact that it has caused concern in many scientific minded individuals who up till now had dismissed *any* anti-AGW rhetoric as simply belonging to those crazy rush-loving republicans who hate Al Gore.

Edit: *up till now been forced to dismiss ...

Please don't bring the "Stupid American" fallacy into this. Other people from other countries have expressed concerns as well.

Ask sylas, he knows all about discussing, verifying and replicating the results from data he has gathered.
Is that one of the "experts" we aren't supposed to be trusting? or is that one of the experts who it is okay to trust?

..Climategate has scandalized the AGW camp and all their results are bogus and blah, blah, blah, and pretend it's a real problem instead of looking at the raw data for themselves and concluding, on their own.
It is a real problem.

The emails indicate that at least among some of the "experts" there was a concerted effort to mold aspects of scientific policy to meet their own agenda.

To ignore this is intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
381
0
It is not over-used. It is a fact that it has caused concern in many scientific minded individuals who up till now had dismissed *any* anti-AGW rhetoric as simply belonging to those crazy rush-loving republicans who hate Al Gore.

Edit: *up till now been forced to dismiss ...

Please don't bring the "Stupid American" fallacy into this. Other people from other countries have expressed concerns as well.
So because I say that most politicians who have become involved that equals 'stupid american fallacy' to you? Interesting, I thought I was just saying that American politicians are making the most noise about this, nothing to do with their intelligence.

Yes, climategate has been way over-used. Instead of debating anything about the actual science the skeptics (mostly politicians, mostly American I've noticed) have taken to character-assassination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEGBgHxNTQ&feature=related

Even if what was in the e-mails was true I have yet to see one single skeptic bring up anything new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.

Is that one of the "experts" we aren't supposed to be trusting? or is that one of the experts who it is okay to trust?
While I'm sure that sylas is quite knowledgable on the subject of climate research I do not think he would consider himself an expert. As far as I know he's a mathematician who has taken an interest in climate research to understand. Look at what's happening here: A person says that people need to take the data and understand it themselves and when someone from our own PF community goes and does this and discusses their results in other threads the character assassination gets attempt on them? That quite frankly is ********.

It is a real problem.

The emails indicate that at least among some of the "experts" there was a concerted effort to mold aspects of scientific policy to meet their own agenda.

To ignore this is intellectually dishonest.
Well, keep saying that, find something wrong with the science and quit playing politics if AGW is so wrong; it should be quite easy.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
259
2
The problem have with climate change is not with the science, but the politicians. AGW is a topic partaken in conversations by AVERAGE PEOPLE(aka non scientists/hardcore science enthusiasts). How could such a complex topic be accurately depicted in a political, emotionally charged, powerpoint presentation? It couldn't, however, many people are now convinced one way or the other(mostly towards the side of AGW). I believe politicians, from many countries, are using AGW research and promotion for their own corrupt agendas. I think this would explain why some climatologists "hide" data, to get funding.
 
  • #54
381
0
I think this would explain why some climatologists "hide" data, to get funding.
Source? please.
 
  • #55
4,464
64
...Even if what was in the e-mails was true I have yet to see one single skeptic bring up anything new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.
Remarkable indeed, considering the plethora of studies with new elements challenging AGW, just to mention a few of the many that I did not quote before:

Douglass et al 2004, Douglass et al 2007, McIntyre, McKitrick submitted 2009, http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf [Broken], Klotzbach et al submitted 2009, Stubbles 2008, http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf [Broken], Barkāns and Žalostība 2009

So one can wonder indeed why these never have come to your attention. Is it maybe because the many mindguards do their work so excellently, "protecting the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency?"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
381
0
Remarkable indeed, considering the plethora of studies with new elements challenging AGW, just to mention a few of the many that I did not quote before:

Douglass et al 2004, Douglass et al 2007, McIntyre, McKitrick submitted 2009, http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf [Broken], Klotzbach et al submitted 2009, Stubbles 2008, http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf [Broken], Barkāns and Žalostība 2009

So one can wonder indeed why these never have come to your attention. Is it maybe because the many mindguards do their work so excellently, "protecting the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency?"?
I'm specifically talking about NEW papers that specifically have to do with AGW data manipulation. You should do a check up on half those skeptics however, lol.

Andre you can keep referencing to papers all you like and point out how anybody who is against your beliefs is groupthinking. It just shows in my opinion how weak your stance is. You are doing what a majority of other skeptics are doing and that is, as you can see from the youtube video, character assassination. Skeptics would love for their allegations over climategate (which is what we were previously specifically talking about before you come in here throwing random papers around) and they are doing a pretty good job at making it seem like something new has come out of it: FACT OF THE MATTER IS: nothing new HAS come up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
seycyrus
So because I say that most politicians who have become involved that equals 'stupid american fallacy' to you? Interesting, I thought I was just saying that American politicians are making the most noise about this, nothing to do with their intelligence.
You are the one who used the word "american" as an adjective, not I. You claim that you used it to denote mere geographical information? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Yes, climategate has been way over-used.
No, it has not been over-used.

Instead of debating anything about the actual science.
The fact is that the CRU hack has made many question the "actual" science. The emails are indicative of an attempt to mold the scientific venue.

the skeptics (mostly politicians, mostly American I've noticed) have taken to character-assassination.
There you go again with your 'american" politician angle again. Pray tell, what voting block do these politicians represent? I think I know the answer.... This line of logic is once again steering back to the theme that started this thread, i.e. "the only people who have doubts about AGW are Rush Limbaugh loving, republican, Al Gore haters.

That is not true. To imply such, is distasteful, deceitful and disingenuous.

new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.
Because the CRU hack is about motive, and cherry picking. Not about something like proposing an alternative thermal balance model. Simple.

Look at what's happening here: A person says that people need to take the data and understand it themselves and when someone from our own PF community goes
and does this and discusses their results in other threads the character assassination gets attempt on them? That quite frankly is ********.
You should take a step or two back, before you accuse me of attacking sylas. I pointed out the fact that the choice of experts depends on where one sits. Nothing more.

Well, keep saying that, find something wrong with the science and quit playing politics if AGW is so wrong; it should be quite easy.
1) You miss the point of the entire thread. 2) Just because something is wrong, does not mean it is easy to disprove.
 
  • #58
299
1
  • #59
381
0
I think you just broke my irony meter.
I've tried pointing this out to him already, EPIC fail on my part.
 
  • #60
Evo
Mentor
23,103
2,448
Locked. This thread has seriously gone off topic and has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Off topic posts on CRU were moved to the Cru Hack thread.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: James Randi's comment on AGW

  • Last Post
4
Replies
81
Views
11K
Replies
14
Views
850
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top