Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by treydampier

With the greatest respect to all opinions, anything concerning global warming is based on models of very recent data. Since global temperature change occurs on an evolutionary time scale, the science is unclear and not factual. It is not junk science, but its one step short.
Now if you have a degree in climatology, meteorology, or biology then you can talk about data since you understand the dynamic at which its taken. If you have one of those, which I do, then you should reveal when and where you received your degree. Mine was a B.S. in Biology with concentration in cell biology and biochemistry, Samford University 2005 Cum Laude. My research was specifically in heavy metal contamination of local water sources. If you are just a statistician, then you need to learn the actual science put into the stats and then you can be qualified to speak on the subject. Some people on this forum would have you believe they are experts and use derogatory comments about what others believe. Its not fair, but hey, we can't all get away with it.
I have looked at much of the data. Based on models, global warming will lead to polar ice melting and cooling the oceans and then cause a temporary global cooling. Since this is expected over the next 500 years or so, then the model is flawed or accelerated. The fact is the data is just that, its data. I do not claim that it isn't legitimate, or real, but the claim it is being used to support needs 1000's of years of collecting to draw a legitimate conclusion. It has no real significance and any credentialed scientist with knowledge of climatology will tell you that until 10000 of years of data are collected, what is currently known is worthless.
Al Gore has no scientific background,he is not qualified to speak on anything scientific. His education is in government. I voted for him the first time because I thought he was smarter than the alternative, but the truth is he just wants to push his own agenda. The only reason global warming is being pushed is so that wealthy countries can join a pack and buy carbon credits. Its really just a way to influence another tax which is all carbon credits are. Then the small countries can be treated as our equals. Guess which company that helped elect our current president will be the front-runner to more energy efficient products that you will be forced to buy? Thats right folks General Electric Company, plus now the they have their president elected, they no longer needed their news channel to promote him, so they sold it. Global warming is not really a liberal hoax, its just stupidity to the Nth degree and people who buy into it or global cooling are the same people that think antibiotics cure colds.
The behavior in this thread of is not very nice. The rudest of them all would have you believe that they know what they are talking about, when clearly they are not a brilliant as they think since they can not tell the difference between random data, and hard factual science based on enough data to draw a conclusion. They put out these websites and data and fancy words and above all else their arrogant attitude and then get upset if you don't agree with them.
As the Great Chinese proverb says,
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun Him!"

So-says the guy with a BS in biology...not in meteorology, but in biology. And a BS at that. I have one of them BS degrees in Biology as well (Rutgers University, 1979) but I am would hardly consider myself qualified to pronounce upon, or dismiss, those who have degrees, including advanced degrees, in the field of science to which AGW is concerned--meteorology/climatology.

Sheesh!

I am moving to a third world country, at least there the taxation for climate isn't hypocritical and does not claim to be based on junk science. Besides I think we should bankrupt the US for the sake of junk science climate change conspiracy. Plus we can make GE richer in the process. GLobal warming is a term used solely for the purpose of getting research grants. Not to actually describe a proven phenomenon.
Some people you just have to look at and pity, because in the end they just are clueless. But, they will type till their keyboards give out about junk, untested data that they call science.

Besides, we should all learn to live in a sustainable 8X10ft plywood box with one hanging fluorescent light bulb. That my friends is sustainable and we should not have to pay too many carbon credits to do that. And we should not own vehicles or have animals because they produce CO2, this way we can stop global warming. We should all become vegetarians.
IN a few years, I am going to buy ocean property that is covered underwater by the warming, that way when I live forever and everyone else dies form heat exhaustion, the polar ice caps will re-freeze eventually and I can build my box on the beach!
BTW we scientists use the "Scientific Method". Its not called the "Scientific Model" which the warming conspiracy uses to scare us all into heat exhaustion.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So-says the guy with a BS in biology...not in meteorology, but in biology. And a BS at that. I have one of them BS degrees in Biology as well (Rutgers University, 1979) but I am would hardly consider myself qualified to pronounce upon, or dismiss, those who have degrees, including advanced degrees, in the field of science to which AGW is concerned--meteorology/climatology.

Sheesh!

Lets clarify something real fast. If I wanted an advanced degree I would have gotten one. I agree that biology is not meteorology. But my ability to read research on climate is not hindered since weather patterns do profoundly effect the biosphere. Hence the requirement for physical geography in the curriculum. I am pursuing a professional degree instead, the main difference is it takes a lot longer in many cases and demands more areas of expertise as opposed to an advanced degree in one or two related subject areas.
Hind site, I should have gotten the PhD, and still may since research is big in residency now and I may get to take a few years to get one while in residency. We'll just have to wait and see though.

Originally Posted by treydampier

Lets clarify something real fast. If I wanted an advanced degree I would have gotten one.

*whew* I thought we might have to accept you opinion as informed for a minute.

Originally Posted by xman

*whew* I thought we might have to accept you opinion as informed for a minute.

and we should accept your opinion as more informed and better educated?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

and we should accept your opinion as more informed and better educated?

I have only offered one opinion in this thread and that is that 'Climategate' is a hoax. I have also supplied the information which supports it. You get to make up your own mind. Doesn't seem entirely right, but you're allowed to be completely bonkers anyhow if you wish.

Originally Posted by treydampier

With the greatest respect to all opinions, anything concerning global warming is based on models of very recent data.

I am going to assume that in the above statement you mean to omit climate data retrieved from coring samples from million year old glaciers and from coring into igneous rock to retrieve data that has been preserved for hundreds of thousands, and in some cases, millions of years.

Glaciers have seasonal "rings" very much like trees, so it is possible to isolate a year from a very long time ago. It is amazing what has been discovered regarding global warming using such methods. But its certainly not a model of recent data. The data gathered using these methods is very, very old.

Would you like to know my credentials? I have some, but I don't care to get into a ****ing match about how qualified I am to interpret data.
I'm qualified. Believe me.

Originally Posted by treydampier

We should all become vegetarians.

I was just about to go for everything else, but as you all have heard about single issue voters, this is my issue.
I've made my mind now, I'm going anti-global warming, or is it pro-global warming? It don't matter, just tell me which is the one that comes with meat, or actually better get some ribeye going on the bbq and invite me over.

Originally Posted by gugi

I was just about to go for everything else, but as you all have heard about single issue voters, this is my issue.
I've made my mind now, I'm going anti-global warming, or is it pro-global warming? It don't matter, just tell me which is the one that comes with meat, or actually better get some ribeye going on the bbq and invite me over.

gugi, we can't have steaks, you know better than that...too much of a carbon footprint going on there with the bbq pit...
maybe some fish gruel and unleavened bread

Yea, screw it. The data is probably wrong. I'm sure everything is just fine.
Sorry to be such a "chicken little" about it, as we have plenty of evidence that our current way of life is perfectly safe and we don't need to worry about the consequences.






If we haven't felt any detrimental effects yet, I'm sure we never will...