Climategate Fox news expose.

[Greatcloud]

YouTube - Glenn Beck on "ClimateGate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy 11-23-09

Fudged data, hiding emails, erasing emails just the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps there are two sides.



Climategate

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

How do you know if a glenn beck is lying? His lips move.

Seriously though this is really old and already dealt with.

 

[Greatcloud]

There are enough new things coming out about Climategate to last a year. What needs to be talked about most is the fudging of data. Here is another video please watch it.

YouTube - Lord Monckton: Global Warming big scientific fad

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Just as a aside i like how beck went "See! we've been claiming this without any evidence for years now!"
Thats just fantastic that he isnt seeing the problem with that statement xD

also i do no know the first thing about climate change. all i know is apparently 97% of the scientists that actually study it say global warming is happening. That is enough for me. If that lord monckton failed to present his science to the scientific comunity and convince them. Why is he instead playing the political game trying to convince the layman? Is that how these fringe groups think it works? "well the people that know how this stuf works aint buying my story. Ill just go sell it to joe smuck over there untill enough of them believe me and we can vote the real science out"

Again, i dont know the first thing about all this but i just call em as i see em. science belongs in the scientific arena. to take it anywhere else just shows you failed where it mattered.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The thing about Fox is that the Onion is funnier.

I mean as made-up "news" goes.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

YouTube - 7. Climate Change - "Those" e-mails and science censorship

May aswell actually post the "already dealt with" bit i supose.

 

[thaumaturgy]

.....

 

[Greatcloud]

The more relevent news will be getting out as time goes on and these emails are studied.

 

[Greatcloud]

Scientists Behaving Badly | The Weekly Standard

Good article on climategate.



CLIMATEGATE

 

[sbvera13]

I think the only thing Fox News has ever exposed is it's own bias.

 

[USincognito]

Well now I'm convinced. If well known Climatologists like Glenn Beck, Lord Monkton and the staff of the Weekly Standard think it's a hoax, then it must be so.

 

[kangitanka]

all i know is apparently 97% of the scientists that actually study it say global warming is happening. That is enough for me.
Again, i dont know the first thing about all this...

As an aside, this is nothing but a Appeal to Authority Fallacy

Source A says that p is true.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

but i just call em as i see em.

Not really. As a matter of fact, not at all. You, yourself said that you know not "the first thing" about this subject. You don't know anything about this subject, according to your own words. I'm guessing you haven't even investigated it.
You are relying on the infallibility of the sources ("97%....is enough for me")
That nearly defines Appeal to Authority.

science belongs in the scientific arena. to take it anywhere else just shows you failed where it mattered.

And a pure Appeal to Authority is a failing.
You are taking science into the realm of "I don't know anything about this, all I know is that a boatload of scientists say it's happening"...and to wit- without knowing "the first thing" (your words) about climate change

For those like Thaumaturgy and GlennMorton, who have both actually studied this.....THEY have scientific statements, even though they pointedly disagree.

But this kind of post (yours) is nothing more than a fallacy.
Appeal to Authority= fail.

 

[Tenka]

As an aside, this is nothing but a Appeal to Authority Fallacy

No.
Appeal to authority occurs when the authority cited are not expert on the topic.

Appeal to Authority= fail.

I wonder what appealing to misdiagnosed fallacies is called?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I also do not know the first thing about germs. I know that every scientist and doctor in the field agrees they exist. That again is enough for me. Simulary i do not know the first thing about cars but i know mechanics agree that i shouldnt put sand in it.

It is not my job to educate myself on every single piece of knowledge that humanity has ever put together. It simply cannot be done so there comes a point where you have to admit "i dont know about it, but the overwhelming majority of the guys who do know have this to say. Im not gonna contradict them out right"

Also thank you tenka for the explaination.

although i did think about weither my statement would fall under the fallacy i came to the conclusion there is a difference between pointing to the overwhelming majority of informed scientists. and pointing to the fringe group that do not agree with them. Thats not to say the fringe group is wrong. its just to say that the fringe group has to present its evidence to the majority that do not agree and convince them in their field. The consensus started of with the earth being flat after all. so that just proofs that if the evidende is there the majority opinion will shift when its presented. It is however not up to joe smuck on the street to hear both sides then go "well i dun fall of tha earth but i know mah glass eye rolls when i be dropping it so tha earth is surely curved and round"

So i stick with my statement. go with the scientific consensus.
not the fringe group that think the earth is round, demons make you sick and cars can burn sand as fuel. They might be right, but its up to them to take the route of the scientific methode to proof they are right. Any attempt to dodge the same trial every single scientific idea has had to pass for decades is a blattent admission of your own lack of convidence that your evidence is strong enough to support your position.

The scientific methode has proven to be the most reliable methode we have and it has not failed so far. i trust that if globalwarming is false it will be shown by that same methode that it is.

In the mean time im sure we can surive the horrors of being encouraged to live greener lives. the enviroment is going to like that either way.

 

[Greatcloud]

We have got to hide the decline.

 

[Nabobalis]

10 years doesn't make a trend but you have a source for that graph?

 

[USincognito]

10 years doesn't make a trend but you have a source for that graph?

icecap.us

A denier site with a reputation for shoddy work.

 

[Greatcloud]

It still does not change the fact that the global temperatures are declining. ":^)

Shouldn't you be happy about that ?

 

[Nabobalis]

It still does not change the fact that the global temperatures are declining. ":^)

Shouldn't you be happy about that ?

I agree that from 2002 to now there has been a negative trend but the period is too short to get anything certain out of it.That is why climatologists don't use 1 year or even 8 years to make predictions since they aren't long enough.

Plus I am not allowed to post links nor images but as the data shows the world is warming still;

Period Length Trend Significance
(Degrees C per decade)
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

[It seems I can't even copy and paste a table without the format going funny but the data is from the Q&A: Professor Phil Jones on the BBC].

See how big the periods are? That is why 2002 from now is not that great plus 2002 was chosen because people can use it to make their point, not because of good science.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Greatcloud. Below, I've provided you with the HadCRUT3 record with several short-term temperature trends placed onto it.

Surely you can see how ridiculous this is? But it's what you're doing.