Climategate independently proven to be a storm in a tea cup

[kiteless]

Somewhatfoolish said:

All science is uncertain, and science with this complex a dataset doubly so. All you can do is state your conclusion has x uncertainty.

Which is why myself, and many others (including 31,000+ scientists with PhD) are getting royally fked off with the trillions being - or planned to be - spunked up the fking wall based on science that, in your own words, is doubly uncertain in its conclusions.

As I stated previously, notwithstanding whether AGW is true or not, the global ramifications of either outcome are - well - global. Either fiscally or climatically. Given the seriousness of the issues involved, uncertainty in any measure is not fking acceptable. Inconclusiveness is not acceptable. The science needs to be black or white. Yes or no. Either it will or it won't, and the IPCC bilge states nothing of the sort with its maybe, possibly, likely.

[G_T]

Tangent Police said:

This topic is as irrelevant as anything.

What we are looking for is an actual link between methodology, data and the impact of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.

The data, methodology and conclusions should clearly speak for themselves and be statistically credible to be worthy of any sort of action.

The science has been done by the scientists. Unfortunately it has yet to filter through into pistonheads as we largely seem to ignorant to this fact and often lack the basic grasp of what the arguement even is.

In terms of the thread being irrelevent, it seems important to remind people that there is a wider world out there and it does not agree with these little blue boxes that we waste so much of lives typing in.

I believe it's fairly obvious that myself (and a majority) are not experts in this field. But I for one am amazed by the clarity in this subject field and the patience of many of those involved to make efforts to explain what is a complex theory.

By contast I can tell you for a concrete fact that none of the treatments we allow medics to treat our loved ones with when they're at their most vulnerable are half as well considered.

The bottom line is that data is available in a form you can understand and test for yourself if you have the expertise. Where it is not it is, again to the best of my knowledge, the reasons for this are clearly explained and there is no sign of any conspiracy beyond the alleged bias. This has been independently reviewed on numerous occasions.

If such a bias exists in this "independent process" then perhaps, this keen interest in demanding evidence (which I endorse) should also be used to back up the the claim that MMGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history? Because from what I have seen the odds lie very much in favour that MMGW is far more likely. Scientifically speaking this is the most we can ever hope for before we make our decisions.

Our resident statistician has even gracefully taken the time to explain the irrelevence of, as far as I can see, every vaguely credible data based arguement. He's even taken the time to reference papers. As ever I am very grateful. He has far more patience than I have.

[BliarOut]

Follow the money...

[mybrainhurts]

G_T said:

arguement

Argument...

[Spiritual_Beggar]

BliarOut said:

Follow the money...

"Qui Bono?"

This is what the logical, rational, sensible people are doing.


Even if you believed GW was real, all you'd need to do is look at what action Governments are taking to see that they don't care about the environment. It's all 'Big Busniess' & control, and money making schemes...they're the ones that benefit

Everyone....including the nature lovers, etc.......are being taken for a ride by Government green taxes, etc, with absolutely ZERO noticeable benefits to the environmentt, but a hell of a lot of problems to small businesses and households.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Wednesday 21st April 23:46

[Diderot]

G_T said:

Tangent Police said:

This topic is as irrelevant as anything.

What we are looking for is an actual link between methodology, data and the impact of anthropogenic emissions on global temperatures.

The data, methodology and conclusions should clearly speak for themselves and be statistically credible to be worthy of any sort of action.

The science has been done by the scientists. Unfortunately it has yet to filter through into pistonheads as we largely seem to ignorant to this fact and often lack the basic grasp of what the arguement even is.

In terms of the thread being irrelevent, it seems important to remind people that there is a wider world out there and it does not agree with these little blue boxes that we waste so much of lives typing in.

I believe it's fairly obvious that myself (and a majority) are not experts in this field. But I for one am amazed by the clarity in this subject field and the patience of many of those involved to make efforts to explain what is a complex theory.

By contast I can tell you for a concrete fact that none of the treatments we allow medics to treat our loved ones with when they're at their most vulnerable are half as well considered.

The bottom line is that data is available in a form you can understand and test for yourself if you have the expertise. Where it is not it is, again to the best of my knowledge, the reasons for this are clearly explained and there is no sign of any conspiracy beyond the alleged bias. This has been independently reviewed on numerous occasions.

If such a bias exists in this "independent process" then perhaps, this keen interest in demanding evidence (which I endorse) should also be used to back up the the claim that MMGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history? Because from what I have seen the odds lie very much in favour that MMGW is far more likely. Scientifically speaking this is the most we can ever hope for before we make our decisions.

Our resident statistician has even gracefully taken the time to explain the irrelevence of, as far as I can see, every vaguely credible data based arguement. He's even taken the time to reference papers. As ever I am very grateful. He has far more patience than I have.

Oh G_T. Do you really have difficulty understanding the concept of 'conflict of interest' or are you merely being obtuse?

[Jasandjules]

G_T said:

The science has been done by the scientists.

Ah, you'll have to remind me, the head of the Scientists of the IPCC - what are his scientific qualifications again?

[Westy Pre-Lit]

G_T said:

The science has been manipulated by the scientists.

EFA

Had you been to primary school, you should have been taught that science is never 'done'!

Considering the science has been manipulated, I'd term the word 'Scientist' in this case very loosely.

Edited by Westy Pre-Lit on Thursday 22 April 08:42

[Lost_BMW]

G_T said:

The science has been done by the scientists . . . I believe it's fairly obvious that myself (and a majority) are not experts in this field. But I for one am amazed by the clarity in this subject field and the patience of many of those involved on the pro AGW side only of course! to make efforts to explain what is a complex theory.

By contast I can tell you for a concrete fact that none of the treatments we allow medics to treat our loved ones with when they're at their most vulnerable are half as well considered.

The bottom line is that data is available in a form you can understand and test for yourself if you have the expertise. Where it is not it is, again to the best of my knowledge, the reasons for this are clearly explained and there is no sign of any conspiracy beyond the alleged bias. This has been independently reviewed on numerous occasions but I realise that this sentence makes little sense and even less point.

If such a bias exists in this "independent process" then perhaps, this keen interest in demanding evidence (which I endorse) should also be used to back up the the claim that MMGW is the biggest conspiracy in human history? which it is as many sceptics are asking for or using evidence of partiality and inaccurate/ insufficient data to check claims. Because from what I have seen the odds lie very much in favour that MMGW is far more likely. Scientifically speaking this is the most we can ever hope for before we make our decisions even though governments have already made the decisions for us and at huge cost before this 'science' has been fully tested and the risks properly ascertained.

Our resident statistician has even gracefully repetitively and blinkerdly taken the time to explain and twist the irrelevence of, as far as I can see, every vaguely credible data based arguement. He's even taken the time to reference papers. As ever I am very grateful. He has far more patience than I have.

[G_T]

Do you honestly believe overtly mocking my spelling or editing what I say in a facetious way adds any credibility to your argument?

Come on chaps. Grow up.

As for the "head scientist", firstly I've no idea what a "head scientist" is, secondly I fail to see the relevence of someone's qualifications if they have specialists within their group to ask specialist questions? Afterall I don't expect the administrator in my local garage to be a fully badged mechanic so long as they can ask a colleague should I require specialist information.

Thirdly if someone has a "vested interest" so much so that this whole MMGW is a lie then it is not enough to simply say "he will make money from MMGW". You must prove that this vested interest has interferred in their impartiality. Where is your proof?

[Jasandjules]

G_T said:

Thirdly if someone has a "vested interest" so much so that this whole MMGW is a lie then it is not enough to simply say "he will make money from MMGW". You must prove that this vested interest has interferred in their impartiality. Where is your proof?

Uh, no. If there is a vested interest, a direct pecuniary interest if you will, then even in Law (i.e. a Judge having a pecuniary interest) then it is assumed that the public will not believe that there is no bias, or in your words, the public will not believe that their impartiality is not impaired. If you would like case law which confirms my assertions I can provide it. Such a matter has been the case since Roman Times - hence the use of Qui Bono - or who benefits.

Your statement is frankly absurd. Indeed, I would suggest that in fact the reverse is true, it is for YOU to prove that there is no interference with their impartiality - to put it another way, you are put to proof. The reason is simple - he has an interest. Thousands of years of law in a number of countries agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

And the fact that certain people are multi-millionaires BECAUSE of AGW, and those people are co-incidentally those who are the loudest proponents of AGW, should give even the least intelligent people something to ponder...

[munroman]

Jasandjules said:

G_T said:

Thirdly if someone has a "vested interest" so much so that this whole MMGW is a lie then it is not enough to simply say "he will make money from MMGW". You must prove that this vested interest has interferred in their impartiality. Where is your proof?

Uh, no. If there is a vested interest, a direct pecuniary interest if you will, then even in Law (i.e. a Judge having a pecuniary interest) then it is assumed that the public will not believe that there is no bias, or in your words, the public will not believe that their impartiality is not impaired. If you would like case law which confirms my assertions I can provide it. Such a matter has been the case since Roman Times - hence the use of Qui Bono - or who benefits.

Your statement is frankly absurd. Indeed, I would suggest that in fact the reverse is true, it is for YOU to prove that there is no interference with their impartiality - to put it another way, you are put to proof. The reason is simple - he has an interest. Thousands of years of law in a number of countries agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

And the fact that certain people are multi-millionaires BECAUSE of AGW, and those people are co-incidentally those who are the loudest proponents of AGW, should give even the least intelligent people something to ponder...

+1 - when the likes of Gore and Pachauri stand to make millions if not billions from promulgating MMGW and 'solutions' to 'fix' it, it is hard to see them as uninterested in scientific research potentially producing the 'wrong' answer from their point of view.

And there is a whole MMGW industry hanging off the back of this, with research funding being used to steer research towards desired outcomes, it's really up to those wishing to change the status quo to prove that there is a link, and that they do not stand to benefit financially from taxation and grants, before they can in any way be considered impartial.

Right now the whole thing stinks of a scam to tax and control the man in the street, the parallels with Religion, as well as the terminology used by 'disciples' of MMGW - 'non-believers', 'armageddon', tend to show that scientific method is not what they believe in, rather foisting their controlling agenda upon others.