that was completely unrelated to my question amp
please try again

Was it? It was about the scandal and people's reaction's to it, which is what this thread has been about the past few days as far as I can see.

Quote from Shotglass :

that was completely unrelated to my question amp
please try again

There are 3 stances you can take. Number 1 is apathetic "I don't care about this, I don't have an opinion either way". Number 2 is outraged/annoyed/disappointed with the way the scientific method has been abused. Number 3 is implicit or explicit acceptance of their methods. You're showing number 3 as far as I can see. You care about the fact that this has happened (because you've posted multiple times about it) and you're implicitly saying it's OK (because "scientists are humans too").

Quote from amp88 :

There are 3 stances you can take. Number 1 is apathetic "I don't care about this, I don't have an opinion either way". Number 2 is outraged/annoyed/disappointed with the way the scientific method has been abused. Number 3 is implicit or explicit acceptance of their methods. You're showing number 3 as far as I can see. You care about the fact that this has happened (because you've posted multiple times about it) and you're implicitly saying it's OK (because "scientists are humans too").

oh for crying out loud ive posted several times that it isnt ok so stop putting words into my mouth

....and you've repeatedly ignored requests to actually back up what you've been saying with some sort of science, not just mumbo-jumbo and pitiful excuses. Shocking attitude from someone who said that we weren't entitled to an opinion because we didn't have knowledge of 'the science'.

Quote from amp88 :

There are 3 stances you can take. Number 1 is apathetic "I don't care about this, I don't have an opinion either way". Number 2 is outraged/annoyed/disappointed with the way the scientific method has been abused. Number 3 is implicit or explicit acceptance of their methods.

There's also:
(4) Unsurprised - in which you are not apathetic yet don't get your panties in a twist over it possibly because of reasons outlined in (6) or because of a healthy distrust of people.
(5) Amused - in which you find both the situation and the extreme polarized reactions as being yet another cliche.
(6) Weathered - in which you've seen similar situations go down in either your work circle or have read about previous such events, even of recent years, at some extent to see that it has happened before and will very likely happen again due to the nature of people.

And since it's not all binary choices you can also combined elements from all of the above. Not everyone who doesn't fully agree with things said or segments of things said can be immediately assigned to a strict category like "globalist" or "dope smoking hippy" or "conservative" or "right winger" or any of the other words and catchphrases invented by people who require an enemy/opponent to identify themselves by contradiction and absolute quantization. It's probably more effective to just spend such energy in sorting socks and colourcoding household items.

Quote from Intrepid :

No we don't. Try ignoring paying your TV Licence. See how far that gets ya!

Sorry. You have a "TV License" over there?

Quote from jtw62074 :

Sorry. You have a "TV License" over there?

As do several countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_license

The most ridiculous being the way it's enforced over here - they include it in the electricity bill, regardless if you have a TV or not or even if the electricity bill is for utilities only (like say a stairwell in an apartment building).

Quote from Shotglass :

while that may all be well and true it doesnt change the simple fact that its not a criminal offense as far as i can tell (and as far as the response has been thus far with even the americans not yet threatening to sue anybody as far as ive heard) which means there simply isnt anyone else but their emloyers to answer to
its really that simple

WOW, really? Isn't that the same defense nazi-germans used at the Nuernburg trials? "We just followed commands, that's not against the law." Stop arguing just for the sake of arguing, u are reaching for idiotic arguments and trying to downplay what was actually going on.

Irrelevant and creative "globalist" angle? It was ****ing Al Gore and ENRON that started talking about this in 1992, taxing CO2, having a globalist government, and you see nothing wrong with that? Having someone outside of your country's law system being able to control your life and tax you based on bogus research and made up numbers? We are heading towards an ice age anyway and they just wanna make money, AGAIN.

All of the things published in those emails and research just prove that there was an overwhelming number of people in someone's pocket and everyone agreed to fake information that went directly to the UN, one of the most powerfull entities in the world? Even if what you say is true: there are no laws, does that that mean that there shouldn't be? Everything that the US goverment has been doing lately goes against what that country was founded on, the immense amount of lies is just scary and it's people like you who keep downplaying what's actually going on until it's too late that are helping them get away with it.

Godwin's law! :doh:

This has got to the point where certain people just aren't big enough to accept that they're wrong.

Quote from mookie427 :

....and you've repeatedly ignored requests to actually back up what you've been saying with some sort of science, not just mumbo-jumbo and pitiful excuses.

Back up what exactly? That scientists are in fact human? You've built such an elaborate strawman to argue here it's hard to keep up what statements you've attributed to Shotglass this time.

I'm sure a list of points he has made that you would like him to back up would help.

Quote from wien :

Back up what exactly? That scientists are in fact human? You've built such an elaborate strawman to argue here it's hard to keep up what statements you've attributed to Shotglass this time.

I'm sure a list of points you would like him to refute would help.

I, and I'm sure others, would appreciate some sort of back-up, scientific evidence or otherwise, as to why he thinks our arguments are rubbish when we have provided all sorts of evidence, and the only evidence he has provided has been a frankly useless Venus comparison. He is the one who said we weren't entitled to hold an opinion because, unlike him, we weren't involved in 'the science', but so far there has been no 'science' demonstrated by him whatsoever.

Why don't you go back and read what statements he's actually made? I think you'll find none of them mention the science behind global warming more than in passing. Knowing that it should be easy to understand why he gets all annoyed when he's got several frothing conspiracy-nuts jumping on him to back up science he's never made statements about in the first place.

Quote from wien :

frothing conspiracy-nuts

Normally I dismiss conspiracy theories, but this one has some pretty serious evidence backing it up.

Infact its gone beyond a conspiracy, its a scandal. You'd probrably realise that if you pulled your head out of the sand.

The point is, if he is going to dismiss other people's views because they don't know science like he does, then he has to at least be able to back his points up with scientific knowledge.

I don't get the fascination with Shotglass's involvement in the thread. His interest seems to revolve principally around the "gate" in "climategate" and the consequent conspiracy theory-related presumptions he spawned in his mind as a result. Beyond that, he seems pretty disinterested in AGW theories or the ramifications of the UEA email and document leak.

I'd rather delve into the thread's subject matter than waste any more time focusing on individuals in the thread. Let's move on.

You have proof that:
- "the group saying it's no big d ... rely of German globalists"
- "the science behind the proposa ... t world nations and more."
- "Google has just censored the w ... tocomplete search feature"

Because those were the conspiracies I was talking about, and I sure haven't seen any proof. These comments are just so far beyond loony-bin it's not even funny. As the saying goes "It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.", which means this whole thread is nigh on useless. Never in my life have I seen such a display of violent ignorance and hatred.

You're all ****ing mad.

Quote from wien :

You're all ****ing mad.

Are we? Really?

How do you feel about the information in the leaked emails?

How do you feel about the fact that the climatology community is, and has been for decades, divided on AGW?

How do you feel about the upcoming Copenhagen summit, which is pushing for billions of dollars of governmental expenditure, being based on scientific conclusions that have not been supported by evidential data or ratified by independent scientists, despite this being contrary to normal scientific processes?

Conspiracy theories aside, the email/document leak occurred, the climatology community is divided and the UEA CRU's conclusions are the principle basis for carbon taxes. How do you feel about these things?

Quote from SamH :

Are we? Really?

How do you feel about the information in the leaked emails?

How do you feel about the fact that the climatology community is, and has been for decades, divided on AGW?

How do you feel about the upcoming Copenhagen summit, which is pushing for billions of dollars of governmental expenditure, being based on scientific conclusions that have not been supported by evidential data, despite this being contrary to normal scientific processes?

Conspiracy theories aside, the email/document leak occurred, the climatology community is divided and the UEA CRU's conclusions are the principle basis for carbon taxes. How do you feel about these things?

How I feel about them has nothing to do with what I think of the quality of discussion over here. I'd be more that happy to discuss those points in a forums that isn't filled with angry, angry consipracy theorists that have just (in their minds) gotten their conspiracies confirmed. There's no point. It's a waste of energy, and only seems to lead to even more anger and even wilder conspiracy theories.

This whole field has gotten so completely out of hand I've given up on it completely. Congratulations. You won. Hooray!

Quote from SamH :

Conspiracy theories aside, the email/document leak occurred, the climatology community is divided and the UEA CRU's conclusions are the principle basis for carbon taxes. How do you feel about these things?

Sam 90% of people clearly don't care how the BBC spend their TV licence fee. Why would they care about this?

Quote from wien :

How I feel about them has nothing to do with what I think of the quality of discussion over here. I'd be more that happy to discuss those points in a forums that isn't filled with angry, angry consipracy theorists that have just (in their minds) gotten their conspiracies confirmed. There's no point. It's a waste of energy, and only seems to lead to even more anger and even wilder conspiracy theories.

This whole field has gotten so completely out of hand I've given up on it completely. Congratulations. You won. Hooray!

Fine. Then stop trolling this thread. If you're not interested in the topic and are only interested in complaining about the people in it, then butt out. I mean it.

Quote from Intrepid :

Sam 90% of people clearly don't care how the BBC spend their TV licence fee. Why would they care about this?

I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of elderberries.

Quote from SamH :

Fine. Then stop trolling this thread.

I'm trolling, but they guy suggesting this is all a Nazi conspiracy is not. Good to know where you stand. I'm out.

Quote from wien :

Because those were the conspiracies I was talking about, and I sure haven't seen any proof. These comments are just so far beyond loony-bin it's not even funny. As the saying goes "It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.", which means this whole thread is nigh on useless. Never in my life have I seen such a display of violent ignorance and hatred.

You're all ****ing mad.

Incase you didn't notice, there has been some leaking of quite significant emails going on.

So what about all the other conspiracy stuff, at the end of it all we now know that Scientists have been fiddling with data to suit their hypothesis and destroying data which might dispove them, that is a fact which can be supported by some evidence (leaked emails).

Quote from wien :

filled with angry, angry consipracy theorists that have just (in their minds) gotten their conspiracies confirmed. There's no point. It's a waste of energy, and only seems to lead to even more anger and even wilder conspiracy theories.

I hope you're not including me in your angry conspiracy theorists. The facts of the matter are clear and don't require any imagination. The raw data has been purposely deleted. The methods used to arrive at the conclusions are not open to inspection. We (everyone who pays tax in the countries effected by the decisions taken based on the information produced by UEA/CRU) are paying for things based on inaccurate or falsified data. I am angry, yes, but only because of the way the conclusions have been reached.

Conspiracy theorists usually arrive at wild conclusions with little or no facts. We have a lot of evidence available to us now that, at the very least, makes the data severely untrustworthy.

Quote from wien :

You have proof that:

- "Google has just censored the w ... tocomplete search feature"

Because those were the conspiracies I was talking about, and I sure haven't seen any proof. These comments are just so far beyond loony-bin it's not even funny. As the saying goes "It's impossible to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themself into.", which means this whole thread is nigh on useless. Never in my life have I seen such a display of violent ignorance and hatred.

You're all ****ing mad.

I said it 'appears' that Google had censored 'climategate'. I only had heard from various people that they were noticing that the word wasn't showing when it had been previously. I did check for myself, and other search engines, but as Xaotik pointed out I wasn't using Google.com but Google.com.au, and that's the reason 'climategate' was not showing for me. I can't speak for anyone who had been using Google.com, there's no way I can prove that the word was censored, and anyway it's a stupid diversion from the main issues. It's back now anyway.

PS, I didn't really like your simplistic water vapour/feedback explanation. Shot did rightly point out that you had forgotten (conveniently?) to include clouds into the picture and he also rightly said that this is an area where the science is not well understood. I think if you actually feel you have a good working understanding of feedbacks in the climate system you should sign up for a job with the IPCC, because they admit freely that the area needs a lot more work.

As far as the 'hatred' in your comment goes (I was formerly addressing the ignorance comment) I don't 'hate' any of these scientists, or wish to see their heads on a platter or any such thing. What I do want to see is a return to good science based on a fair analysis of the actual facts and uncertainties in climatology, and have these communicated honestly to the public which needs to know what the issues and problems are. My reaction when I heard about 'climategate' was probably mostly one of relief. I have been following this stuff for a while and have noticed many examples where people were not being given the full or correct story about what was going on in climatology, and have seen time and time again how the media have distorted a particular story in favour of an alarmist angle over more fact based reporting. It is rife.

I have reasoned myself into my current position and if you hold a different position then I would hope that we could atleast respectfully disagree. I'm a person who is genuinely interested in the science of global warming, I have a great concern and care for the planet (eg, I've spent half of my adult life in environmental restoration, have been an activist for the greens, and been involved in numerous urban organic community gardens and other projects). I just don't like lies, from either side of the debate.