Climategate!

all hail gugi, if you disagree with him you are nothing. you have been shown the opposition and you dismiss it without a thought. the more proof given the more he ignores it. again he trys to use his master logic to read too deep into others thoughts and completely looses sight of what is being said. in other words "can't see the forest for the trees" also reminds me of this "none so blind as those who look but do not see, listen but do not hear"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Oh that's a nice one, haven't heard that before. Every day I understand more and more how some american stereotypes have come about.

And as my good friend Glen said recently, some of you are so easy to manipulate :) OTOH I do expect from you guys a very basic level of logic. Like when A is smaller than B that you don't call B and A the same, or B smaller than A. It's really not that hard.




Not surprisingly some completely unsubstantiated claims here and again you still don't seem to get it.
Sir Isaac Newton was a jerk, but the planets still move according to his theory.

Since you can't offer any decent argument I'm going to be leaving the thread and let me finally tell you my opinion on the matter, which you can derive from the previous sentence.

In this particular case it is irrelevant. The way science works is that falsified, or misrepresented results get caught when others try to reproduce them.
If you think the sky is falling because some scientists weren't completely honest with their research, you're either very young, very sheltered, way over your place, or very malicious.

Have fun with the choir auditions

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 59caddy

all hail gugi, if you disagree with him you are nothing. you have been shown the opposition and you dismiss it without a thought. the more proof given the more he ignores it.

---

You call this 'proof'? I wish you were kidding, but unfortunately I know that you aren't.
What this is is scientific impotence resorting to non-scientific arguments. If you want to convince me you better present relevant facts that pertain to the problem you all claim is so important, namely 'climate change' and not 'scientific integrity'.
They may look one and the same to you, but they are distinctly different. So yes, your quote does appear to be very relevant:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 59caddy

"none so blind as those who look but do not see, listen but do not hear"

---

Gugi logic = here's more proof and evidence so it obviously must not be true, because I'm just really nice. :shrug:

:D

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still.

I know I know! Let's bring everyone together, let's stitch this great divide between friends with a nice healthy debate on abortion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

What this is is scientific impotence resorting to non-scientific arguments.

---

Well, scientific arguments have been given on both sides of the issue, ad nauseum, for many years. A rehash of those arguments is not likely to be productive right here and now. The skeptics' arguments have been rejected, ridiculed, and ignored based on appeal to authority. What we are learning from the recently released information is that the AGW-faithful appear to have manipulated, abused and misrepresented that authority (consistently and for a long time) and it is therefore not as authoritative as was generally assumed. In fact, such accusations have been made for a long time but they did not get any traction out of respect for these institutions. What we now have is a "smoking gun" (or two or three or ...). In the past I had given the AGW-faithful the benefit of the doubt and believed their mis-guided science was simply due to their unshakable faith in AGW. From these emails it appears that their actual faith is a bit shaky and the efforts to hide that and to intimidate skeptics deliberate and organized. Or at least "orchestrated" by those most prominent in the movement.

Attempts to ignore or minimize this will make biases quite obvious. I expect a LOT of this. For example the NY Times (publisher of the "Pentagon Papers", and other leaked or stolen classified information) has already said it won't pursue this because the e-mails were "private"). I applaud their new-found prudence.

The fact that most of the civilized world will be greatly harmed by the policies justified by that so-called authority makes it "important" (as I am guessing you meant by "impotence").

gugi, gugi,
you just did it again. i was not giving you proof, i was making a statement and once again you try and read too much into what is said or not said. the proof is out there whether you believe or not. i would say not from your logical standpoint of only believing what is "your truth" as compared to others truth. you dismiss them without a thought. their is only one truth and that is what needs to be put forth. not political/greed slanted so called facts that have been proven wrong and the very scientists that started out with the program are now running away like scared mice trying to distance themselves from the lies and scam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

You call this 'proof'? I wish you were kidding, but unfortunately I know that you aren't.
What this is is scientific impotence resorting to non-scientific arguments. If you want to convince me you better present relevant facts that pertain to the problem you all claim is so important, namely 'climate change' and not 'scientific integrity'.
They may look one and the same to you, but they are distinctly different. So yes, your quote does appear to be very relevant:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasBob

The fact that most of the civilized world will be greatly harmed by the policies justified by that so-called authority makes it "important" (as I am guessing you meant by "impotence").

---

No, there is no typo, I meant exactly what I wrote.

Your first point i.e. according to you scientific arguments are not completely conclusive, is valid.
However, I am absolutely opposed to your proposed solution to this, which is - let's then forget about science altogether and may the side with the bigger political balls win. A very strange choice given your siding on the matter and the political reality. I guess being a martyr could be appealing in some ways too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 59caddy

gugi, gugi,
you just did it again. i was not giving you proof, i was making a statement and once again you try and read too much into what is said or not said. the proof is out there whether you believe or not. i would say not from your logical standpoint of only believing what is "your truth" as compared to others truth. you dismiss them without a thought. their is only one truth and that is what needs to be put forth. not political/greed slanted so called facts that have been proven wrong and the very scientists that started out with the program are now running away like scared mice trying to distance themselves from the lies and scam.

---

huh? we've been at this before and so far you have failed to show any level of competence on the scientific data and its analysis. it's not like i haven't asked, i keep doing it, but so far all you guys can offer is name callings and politics. so, i have reached the conclusion that you don't even know what 'truth', 'fact', 'observation' etc. is, and i am not interested in a pointless shouting match, which appears to be your preference for arguing.

if the 'proof is out there' how come you keep hiding it? you've had at least few dozen posts on this topic and never bothered to present it (hint: blogs, opeds, and such are not proof, scientific research is).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

No, there is no typo, I meant exactly what I wrote.

Your first point i.e. according to you scientific arguments are not completely conclusive, is valid.
However, I am absolutely opposed to your proposed solution to this, which is - let's then forget about science altogether and may the side with the bigger political balls win. A very strange choice given your siding on the matter and the political reality. I guess being a martyr could be appealing in some ways too.

---

Uh -- that happens to be then exact OPPOSITE of what I think. Not sure how my distaste for political maneuvering to undercut scientific give-and-take is equated with wanting the "the bigger political balls win."

Oh, and good luck with your impotence!

EDIT: Gugi -- NOW i can parse your impotence statement! I simply did not understand it at first. I thought you were asking about the "importance" of the AGW science. You were reacting to a refusal to give in to your demand for an immediate scientific argument for something and claiming the lack of response was a sign of impotence. Got it!