Climategate

KO.O. Stuff from 2009
BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:42 pm

Philbert wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:It was panic on a level never seen before in this country. When it was thought that AIDS was going to spread to the heterosexual community and that it was easily transmitted millions were horror-struck. Most thought that we would no longer be able to have sex with strangers and live to tell about it.



Well, this is true, I guess. I certainly remember the time perioud but it didn't have as big an impact in my suburban Detroit neighborhood as it might have had in other parts of the country. Certainly where I live now has a distinctive gay community, although not as visible as in New York, L.A. or San Francisco. Of course, a lot of the fear was based on ignorance, stoked by corrupt religious leaders, and aided by a silent Federal Government, which was too panicked by the Christian Right alliance to say or do anything about what was a national health crisis. Anybody who has read "And the Band Played On" or seen the HBO film based on it can't help but be angered at how badly the health care community and the government screwed up. The media didn't cover itself with glory either.

But the last few years have seen a similar level of panic being generated by the Christian Right, this time against Muslims and other immigrant groups (we'll leave aside my own opinions on the immigration debate itself), although with a great deal of anti-gay sentiment left over. This time it is a more all inclusive hate, covering just about anybody who disagrees with the far right agenda.

Which is most people...


I think you get caught up just a little too much in this hate thing. My guess is it's all a little too self serving since you seem to have a bottomless reservoir of hate for those you disagree with.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:05 pm

Michael wrote:I think it makes sense to develop energy independence in America, which means nuclear, solar and wind. I think it makes sense to stop smogging up the skies with hydrocarbons, which are bad in 100 ways including greenhouse effects. I think it is in our national interest to do both. If it helps global warming, even better.


I agree with most of that although I don't believe that AGW is near the problem some make it out to be.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:14 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:I think you get caught up just a little too much in this hate thing. My guess is it's all a little too self serving since you seem to have a bottomless reservoir of hate for those you disagree with.

You're projecting again, billy, from that bottomless reservoir of disdain you have for anyone who disagrees with you! :lol:
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss
Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:38 pm

dejapig wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:I think you get caught up just a little too much in this hate thing. My guess is it's all a little too self serving since you seem to have a bottomless reservoir of hate for those you disagree with.

You're projecting again, billy, from that bottomless reservoir of disdain you have for anyone who disagrees with you! :lol:


Disdain is actually a pretty strong word and not indicative of how I feel about those I disagree with. I prefer uninformed, naive, stubborn(a quality I possess in abundance), dogmatic, contemptuous of those who actually pay the bills, having blind faith in the most corrupt sector of our society-GOVERNMENT and, of course, those who are so free of hate they feel the necessity to lecture all others about their goodness.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:53 pm

One doesn't have to be personally hateful to recognize the haters. "Lecturing" someone about hate is not the same as professing goodness for oneself.
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:52 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:
AaronCT wrote:Thank you for illustrating my point in the previous post. :)
BTW, here's another quote by that author...

That's right Aaron, as usual, attack the source when you don't like what they have to say.


It's funny because that's exactly what this whole "climategate" episode is all about. An attempt by denialists to manufacture a scandal by searching for and cherry picking certain phrases that are taken out of context and that sound damning to the layman in an attempt to discredit the scientists doing the work in the field.

To put it simply, they are attacking the source.

BrooklynBilly wrote:The science behind the AGW theory is questionable.

Frankly, I don't trust that you know enough about the science to make that call.
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:56 am

AaronCT wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:
AaronCT wrote:Thank you for illustrating my point in the previous post. :)
BTW, here's another quote by that author...

That's right Aaron, as usual, attack the source when you don't like what they have to say.


It's funny because that's exactly what this whole "climategate" episode is all about. An attempt by denialists to manufacture a scandal by searching for and cherry picking certain phrases that are taken out of context and that sound damning to the layman in an attempt to discredit the scientists doing the work in the field.

To put it simply, they are attacking the source.

BrooklynBilly wrote:The science behind the AGW theory is questionable.

Frankly, I don't trust that you know enough about the science to make that call.


Frankly,Aaron I don't think you know enough about me to make that call.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
dejapig
Site Admin
Posts: 6773
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Houston & Phoenix

Re: Climategate

Postby dejapig » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:04 am

You want a measuring contest, billy? Then whip out your...credentials! :lol:

Or should I say...

bona fides? :wink:
Be who you are & say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter & those who matter don't mind. --Dr. Seuss

Keith Olbermann rocks! --dejapig

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:28 am

dejapig wrote:You want a measuring contest, billy? Then whip out your...credentials! :lol:

Or should I say...

bona fides? :wink:


I had a chemistry set when I was a kid and have been a fan of Bill Nye the Science Guy.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:37 am

Here's a pretty even handed look at this topic.

When Science Becomes a Casualty of Politics
By Cathy Young

In the unfolding debate over "ClimateGate," the affair of the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that offer an inconvenient peek behind the curtain of climate science, one thing is clear. Virtually every commentator's position on the issue - is this a scandal that exposes global warming as a scientific sham, or a faux scandal stoked by climate-change denial propaganda? - can be predicted by his or her politics. You can look at the byline or the publication, and predict with near-100 percent accuracy what the article will say. It is no surprise that The Wall Street Journal deplores the arrogant and dogmatic mindset of the "warmists," or that The New Republic assails the brazenness of the "deniers."

While the facts are ostensibly the same, the interpretations differ so dramatically that we might as well be talking about two different realities. For instance, when CRU director Phil Jones wrote about using "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in a particular period, was this an admission to manipulating and fudging temperature data? Or is this simply careless use of language that gives sinister overtones to entirely innocuous activities? Defenders of the scientists point out that "Mike's Nature trick" refers to a technique quite openly used by one of Jones' correspondents, Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann, in a 1998 article in Nature magazine, and that "hiding" the decline is simply another way to describe adjusting the data. Their critics say that the data was being manipulated, casting doubt on some of the most widely accepted calculations of temperature increases in the past 100 years.


Or take the CRU scientists' arrogance and secrecy in dealing with climate-change skeptics, deplored even by some proponents of the view that human-made global warming is a major crisis, such as British environmentalist activist George Monbiot. Were the "warmists" out to suppress dissenting views when they discussed taking steps to prevent the publication of skeptics' articles in peer-reviewed journals - or merely trying to keep junk science out of respectable venues? Were they reluctant to share their raw data because they were perpetrating a hoax, or because they felt besieged and harassed by corporate-paid "deniers" and concerned that any glitch in the data would be twisted to impugn scientific truths in the eyes of the public? Is the scientific consensus that supports man-made global warming based on solid science, or on manipulation of evidence and suppression of dissent?

I will freely admit that I don't have enough knowledge of science or familiarity with the scientific method to be able to come to a truly informed conclusion at to which version of "ClimateGate" is right. Neither, I suspect, do some 95 percent (or, more likely, 99 percent) of people who have spoken out on the issue, on either side. That means they are likely to go with their political instincts and listen to those "experts" who reflect their own preconceived opinions. Conservatives and libertarians, who see the crusade against global warming as an attack on capitalism and freedom, are very likely to think that the hacked emails are devastating to the case for human-made global warming; liberals and leftists, who see global warming denial as an attempt to protect greed and unbridled consumption, are very likely to think that the only real scandal is the deniers' shameless manipulation of public opinion in an attempt to discredit solid science.

There is no doubt that refusal to accept human-made climate change is often self-serving. But the other side has blinders and selfish motives of its own. "Going green" has turned into a vast industry in its own right - as well as a religion with its own brand of zealotry. For many, global warming is the secular equivalent of a biblical disaster sent by God to punish humankind for its errant (capitalist) ways. Those who embrace environmentalism as a faith have no interest in scientific and technological solutions to climate change - such as nuclear power - that do not include imposing drastic regulations on markets and curbs on consumption.

In theory, science should be above such motives. Yet, at the very least, the scientists who back strong measures against global warming have not objected to the alarmism, the political fanaticism, or the pseudo-spiritual drivel promoted by many of the crusaders in this cause.

Public trust is something scientists must work hard to maintain. When it comes to science and public policy, the average citizen usually has to trust scientists - whose word he or she has to take on faith almost as much as a religious believer takes the word of a priest. Once that trust is undermined, as it has been in recent years, science becomes a casualty of politics.

Cathy Young writes a weekly column for RealClearPolitics and is also a contributing editor at Reason magazine. She blogs at http://cathyyoung.wordpress.com/. She can be reached at cyoung@realclearpolitics.com



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printp ... 99497.html
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Thu Dec 10, 2009 9:52 am

BrooklynBilly wrote:
AaronCT wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:That's right Aaron, as usual, attack the source when you don't like what they have to say.


It's funny because that's exactly what this whole "climategate" episode is all about. An attempt by denialists to manufacture a scandal by searching for and cherry picking certain phrases that are taken out of context and that sound damning to the layman in an attempt to discredit the scientists doing the work in the field.

To put it simply, they are attacking the source.

BrooklynBilly wrote:The science behind the AGW theory is questionable.

Frankly, I don't trust that you know enough about the science to make that call.


Frankly,Aaron I don't think you know enough about me to make that call.


The fact that you actually take Monckton serious enough to post that screed tells me enough about your knowledge of climate change science.
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:53 am

Screed: something Aaron disagrees with.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:26 pm

Philbert wrote:
BrooklynBilly wrote:Screed: something Aaron disagrees with.



Question. If somebody here quoted Josef Stalin or Mao as an authority on something here, what would your reaction be?


I don't believe that Joseph Stalin or Mao had anything to say about so called global warming.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet

User avatar
AaronCT
Posts: 839
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:00 am
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Climategate

Postby AaronCT » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:35 pm

BrooklynBilly wrote:Screed: something Aaron disagrees with.


A screed is a diatribe or a rant.
"Overcome the angry by non-anger; overcome the wicked by goodness; overcome the miser by generosity; overcome the liar by truth." ~The Buddha

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~Mark Twain

BrooklynBilly
Forum's Senior Troll
Posts: 5223
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Climategate

Postby BrooklynBilly » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:48 pm

Philbert wrote:Anothe question then. Are you deliberately trying to be this obtuse or does it just come naturally to you?


You should know very well the point I was making. If you don't...then, that does explain a lot, doesn't it?


Do you think that I should answer a question I deem unworthy of answering just because you asked it? I'd like to see some legitimate criticizm of the facts put forward in the article and a bit less disdain for his Lordship.
Nemo surdior est quam is qui non audiet


Return to “2009”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest