Are Climatologists Stupid?

You are misinformed, or misrepresenting reality.

 

Stefan Rahmstorf has been so discredited and taken apart by so many scientist I thought you were joking.

 

Talking about the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution and denying that they are theories is about as much of an admission of doublethink insanity that I can think of.
AGW is a theory too. Get it?
Theories, not laws of physics or rules of math.

 

So that's your idea of a discussion? Declaring that "Stefan Rahmstorf has been so discredited and taken apart by so many scientist (sic)". How about some "original research" to back your claim? Declarative statements never convince me.

 

Why don't you educate yourself and post the definition of a scientific theory? It might prevent you from appearing ignorant when it comes to science.

 

And this bad troll is going on my ignore list. Inability to debate is not uncommon, but this is willful.

 

Define "scientific theory". Because given how you seem to have "theory" as a lesser quality than "law", I'm kind of wondering if you know what it means to begin with. I'm not denying that they are theories... in the scientific sense. What needs to be pointed out is that a scientific theory is, for all intents and purposes, a colloquial fact. The theory of gravity. Germ theory of disease. Atomic theory. The theory of relativity. Quantum theory. And yet, somehow, people manage to mangle the term so badly.

 

Hahahahahahaha!!!!

 

The fact that you are too stubborn to admit that one simple fact, you have convicted yourself of being incapable of being reasoned with. You just hit the iggy bin for being a complete propagandist. I will be answering one other post. But that will come later. Goodbye.

 

Whatever, man. Evolution is a fact and a theory.

 

According to your profile you are extremely unqualified on this subject.

Stagnant, a first year college student
Bowerbird, a nurse
MannieD, automotive (changing oil?)

Kotcher, Electric Power Research Institute Analyst.

I have worked in the Nuclear Power sector for 25 years. My experience directly correlates with this topic.

 

Here is the email.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2445

So you didn't see it?

...

You don't see an attempt by Jones to keep the data hidden by being the only one who knows "where the files are" or the fact that he's mad that somebody would have the temerity to release it?

If they didn't want to deal with all of those requests why didn't they make it available on a website. Surely they could have picked up a grant to establish a worldwide database if the research is SO IMPORTANT to the entire world's safety. Unless, of course, they want to hide something.

And this is where you completely hit the liberal reset button in your head. THEY ADMIT TO HIDING IT! and you just say "well I don't know".
Seriously? SERIOUSLY?????
POTENTIALLY??????
CONTEXT???????

Yeah we're so done!
Goodbye.

 

You have not addressed any of the posts.
Feeding time is over. Welcome to my DBR list!

 

I accept your surrender!

 

Does the fact that the fraud investigation Inhofe promised never happened tell you anything about the stolen emails? If your accusations were true, Inhofe & Moron would have indicted Mann, et al long ago.

 

I put you in the iggy bin too. Goodbye.

 

Data collecting is not science, it is just arithmetic. These Zero-Growth academic gurus are incapable of connecting the dots; they can only collect the dots. This clique of scientists forms a peer group of B students jealous of A students. Their IQs weren't high enough to invent anything useful, so they concentrated on dissing superior minds, starting with the great Elizabethan, Francis Bacon.

Their education turns them into childish escapists. They latch on to climatology because it is one of those Majors for Dummies. Still being childish after they graduate, they fantasize about being comic-book superheroes out to save the world. Social outcasts and losers, they also are in desperate need of friends and a cult that welcomes them despite the fact that they are goofy nerd dorks. Also, because there's a lot of funding money available in alarmist power plays. Another motivation for indulging in alarmist fantasies is that these flowerchildren superheroes can become advisors to scare movies and might get dates with girls they'd never have a chance with otherwise. After all, actresses have something in common with pompous idiots pretending to be scientists by acting the way the gullible public thinks scientists act. Like any other performers, Warmies draw big audiences.

 

You will still change the oil in my car, right.

 

...or cab driver, more like.

Myself, educated as a systems engineer, went the entreprenurial path and built my own businesses.

I know complexity. I know uncertainty. Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

These kids haven't a clue. They buy into ANYTHING.

 

We will certainly be waiting for your CBS 60 minutes debut.

 

MannieD, this post addresses your links. I addressed you links, you like to read articles after working changing oil all day, so now MannieD posts as if the articles are anything other than a climatologist drawing wrong conclusions from other peoples work, MannieD.

have you went to the Electric Power Research Institute site yet, you should.

MannieD, occupation: Automotive (link missing)
Kotcher, occupation: Electric Power Research Institute Analyst

http://www.epri.com/Pages/Default.aspx

 

Yes. Potentially. Context. Maybe. I know that Context is a four-letter word for most republicans (see also: "you didn't build that" as the slogan of the RNC). What we're looking at here is the lead of a group of scientists hiding data (which was later released anyways, and then backed up by other, independent sources). Why? We don't know! We might never know! But what we do know is that these same scientists have been struggling to simply do their work without getting harassed by Inhofe, McIntyre, and company. Maybe that would explain the odd behavior? Maybe they're unwilling to produce unfinished work because they know that the fake skeptics will take that unfinished research and use it to misrepresent the science? Who knows? It's something worth investigating. Err, correction, something that was investigated. Jones was reprimanded on poor conduct due to his hesitance to release the files, but there was no fraud found, neither in the various scientific investigations nor the cases brought before the house of lords or Inhofe's fraud case.

Good riddance to bad rubbish. The very best you could present was a tenuous link that might imply some manner of fraud (which was cleared by multiple sources anyways) that would implicate one data source, and one group of scientists publishing paper. And that's your big case for "Peer review in Global Warming is corrupted"? That's kinda sad, when you think about it.

 

So...really...it's just one spoonful of dog poop added to a liter of vanilla ice cream. Whadda ya think that tastes like?

And...it's clear you lack the curiosity to ask the follow-up question. If one incident is discovered despite the best efforts of the miscreants to hide it, how many more were they able to successfully hide?

 

Scientifically, warming is real, we can measure it. Mans contribution is unknown, we can't measure it. I'm a skeptic of the first order on everything, but the science here is better than most will give credit.

 

Please provide the desperately alluded to context that chanhges what the emails ACTUALLY SAY, that ALTERS THE MEANING OF THEIR WORDS, the way E.Anglia ALTERED THE EMPIRICAL DATA.....