Thread: Climategate!

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Sure did.
It makes about the same amount of sense as most of your other posts...

as if yours sounded like an einstein?

Originally Posted by 59caddy

as if yours sounded like an einstein?

It's all relative, my good man...

Shakes his head as he reads through the last 2 pages of "Data" and realizes that nobody answered one dumb question that "Scientists" have had the 1000's of years of man's time on earth to figure out..

What actually caused the end of the last ice age.... What no hard core proof????? how about a half baked theory????? Anyone???? Oh come on now, somebody out of all these "Climatologists" must have figured it out, I mean really, they can tell the future now, you would think the past would be way easier.....I mean they are sooooooooooooooo smart as to tell us what the insignificant amount of Co2 that man has produced in the last 125 years is going to do, they must have the Ice Age thing figured out right???


Here let me help you a little

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That just scratches the surface, so to speak, and guess what it says??? "Scientists don't really "know" doodly" and what they think they "know" will be different in 10 years when somebody else disproves it...
So please do not even try and tell me the science behind Man Made Global warming is in the least proved....


So wait. You really thought that when they...no you didn't! Tell me you didn't!
Aww no!!!!!!

Originally Posted by gssixgun

That just scratches the surface, so to speak, and guess what it says??? "Scientists don't really "know" doodly" and what they think they "know" will be different in 10 years when somebody else disproves it...
So please do not even try and tell me the science behind Man Made Global warming is in the least proved....

I wouldn't be so hard on scientists in general. Until AGW came along climatology was not one of the "important" sciences. Perhaps "science envy" is what got them into trouble.

But I agree that climatology is pretty flaky. Here was the big scare in 1975. They had lots of "science" to back this up too! More settled science. To disagree was to be a troglodyte capitalist.

Someone wrote them a letter a few months back taking them to task for being so sure of AGW and pointed the above out to them. Their lame response was that they used a question mark. As I remember the article (I did read the original!) the question was more in the spirit of "how soon and hadn't we ought to act NOW before it's too late?" Oddly enough the "cure" then was the same as it is now -- more government regulation and higher taxes.

I can't remember if that was related to "Nuclear Winter" or not -- another big scare that has been abandoned in the search for justified government control over the evils of free enterprise.

A lot has changed in science since 1975.

Computers are surprisingly good at recognizing patterns.

The argument, "Science has changed its answer, admitting that their previous answer was wrong, therefore I have discredited it," shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method.

I've always felt it very disingenuous to debate a scientific topic when you have no expertise in the field, so that's all I've got to say on Climate Change.

Originally Posted by IanS

A lot has changed in science since 1975.

Computers are surprisingly good at recognizing patterns.

The argument, "Science has changed its answer, admitting that their previous answer was wrong, therefore I have discredited it," shows a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method.

I've always felt it very disingenuous to debate a scientific topic when you have no expertise in the field, so that's all I've got to say on Climate Change.

So, when Newton said "If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants" he meant all the others whose science he discredited? Must have been a pretty deep pile of discredited scientists for him to see so far.

When Einstein advanced the theory of gravity did the planets suddenly change course to match his new rules?

Must be, because when climatologists improve their science it somehow "discredits" their previous data.

Boy do I feel like a dummy! I never saw the truth of this before.

Well, Newton's statement was actually a joke at one of his contemporaries expense that has been skewed into a statement of humility because history is kind to geniuses. (He was actually not at all humble.)

But yes, he was in fact discrediting massive amounts of science that preceded him.

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I was making. If you take the stance of 'science was wrong before, therefore I can reasonably assume it is wrong now'; then you may as well throw all science out the window. In effect, that argument is the same as plugging ones ears and humming, since you are effectively saying that scientific method is wrong because it is scientific method. Let me give an analogy.

My razor wasn't shave ready off this 1k stone. Therefore, though I've since honed it on my 4k stone, I can assume it still isn't shave ready. And the 8k after that, the same logic applies. And the 12k... same logic. The strop, same logic. Therefore a razor can never be shave ready.