Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Page 4 of 24 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 239
  1. #31
    IncGamers Member jmervyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    12,934

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    Like I said before, you'd be perfectly reasonable to make the argument (like KillerAim did) that the pre-1960 is also not valid and thus should not be included, but if they know the post-1960 data isn't, why would they include it?
    Because their grounds for excluding post-1960 data is that it doesn't support their computer modeling. That's what they have said internally, which is why this is a smoking gun. If the meaning of "trick" really wasn't "subterfuge", then it could be explained by quoting in context - whereas the context supports the conclusion that it is indeed subterfuge (used because the true data would lead to un-supportive conclusions).
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    Can you cite the illegal attempts?
    I did already; re-read. Their organization, being governmental or quasi-governmental, is subject to the UK's version of FOIA in the same way that secret research in American universities can be revealed through the FOIA process. They openly discuss deletion of their e-mails in response to the FOIA request - meaning, a deliberate cover-up. The next step in the process is for the UK gov't to seize the e-mail server and backups. Remember when people were SSSCREEEEAMING about Shrubco not using the White House e-mail servers? That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    If you are talking about your previous link, they have responded.
    Yah, I certainly am going to believe them now. Trrrust us, we're scientists.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    Also, your timeline seems to be off. The (allegedly ~5%) data in question was deleted (due to problems like urban warming trends) before the report was released.
    <Their> claim is that it's only ~5%. Again, trrrust us, we're scientists.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    This is not a case of:
    Good Scientist: "Can I see the data?"
    Evil Scientist: "NO!" *SMASH SMASH*
    Your proof, considering that THEY STILL REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE DATA!?!? (yeah, I know I'm screaming like a Freeper, but I'm bored)
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    First, I was under the impression that they simply scrubbed the proprietary data from what they finally released, rather then destroy it. Do you know differently? Second, why do you see that as breach of contract?
    They admitted destroying data, per your own article - I still have yet to identify any basis (or where you noticed) claims of a shadowy benefactor who won't allow data to be produced. Secondly, if the data was 'leased', and they destroyed the original, it would be breach of contract - unless you (and most certainly the Anglia crowd) want us to believe that this data was deliberately recorded on Mission Impossible-style cassettes or packaged in "Burn After Reading" envelopes? Because that's the claim you're presupposing as legitimate. This is the sort of reason why I don't believe you are as unbiased as you imagine yourself to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane View Post
    To people who believe their views are being suppressed, I'm sure they will read into it what they want to.
    In my mind, the deliberate sandbagging of opposite viewpoints is the least of the problems. But then, I've always scorned those who hold the peer review process as holy & sacrosanct (and I did so before Michael Crichton's Next or State of Fear where he laughs them through the shredder). Simply put, the peer review process is an official seal on groupthink.

    EDIT - some more links:
    Chris Horner's going to sue NASA-Goddard since they were part of the conspiracy.

    The Atlantic discusses the self-fulfilling modeling issue I've been discussing for years.

    The Torygraph laughs merrily at all the little biatches' excuses.



    Last edited by jmervyn; 25-11-2009 at 18:07.

  2. #32

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by jmervyn View Post
    Because their grounds for excluding post-1960 data is that it doesn't support their computer modeling.
    I was under the impression that their grounds for excluding it was that it didn't even fit the recorded temperatures post-1960, not just their model. I could be wrong, of course, in which case you are correct and it would be cherry-picking.
    I did already; re-read. Their organization, being governmental or quasi-governmental, is subject to the UK's version of FOIA in the same way that secret research in American universities can be revealed through the FOIA process. They openly discuss deletion of their e-mails in response to the FOIA request - meaning, a deliberate cover-up.
    Preaching to the choir here. I already said I think this should be investigated. Until I know for sure what was deleted in those emails, however, any further conclusion is speculation.
    Yah, I certainly am going to believe them now. Trrrust us, we're scientists.
    <Their> claim is that it's only ~5%. Again, trrrust us, we're scientists.
    Well, if you start from the premise that they are all liars, then nothing they say or do will ever prove otherwise to you. For those of us who don't start with that premise, we don't have the luxury of simply dismissing any argument contrary to our predetermined opinion.
    Your proof, considering that THEY STILL REFUSE TO PRODUCE THE DATA!?!? (yeah, I know I'm screaming like a Freeper, but I'm bored)
    They refuse to produce the data that they deleted? Yeah, that checks out.
    Secondly, if the data was 'leased', and they destroyed the original, it would be breach of contract
    Perhaps we are talking about two different things. I was thinking that there are two separate groups of data not yet released: the data that was removed/deleted prior to publication of the report, and any data they still refuse to release under the terms of a third-party agreement.
    This is the sort of reason why I don't believe you are as unbiased as you imagine yourself to be.
    Oh, well if you don't think I'm unbiased, then I should obviously do some serious soul searching.



    ------------------------------------------
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  3. #33
    IncGamers Member vdzele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,482

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    After all these years I have to agree with jmervyn. Not so because I agree with him in general, rather because I don’t like what stands behind this global warming swindle. Deindustrialization and wracking of America does not quite fit in my visions of peaceful world. I don’t like the people who stand behind this.


    We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world

    Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.

    We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse. Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?

    The best thing we can do is to tear down all the factories, all the top commerce of the United States, and level it and give it back to Nature.

    We're either going to save The world or no one will be saved.
    Maurice Strong




  4. #34
    IncGamers Member Glurin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    965

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by SaroDarksbane
    So far, however, I have seen a distinct lack of scientific argument used to refute the GW advocates' claims. Most of it seems to be accusations of corruption\bribery\malice, unsubstantiated rumors, and now the lowest of all forms of criticism, the out of context soundbite (or in this case, textbite)
    That's because you are biased, though I'm not sure if you realize it. You choose not to see scientific arguments refuting the GW advocates' claims. And yes, I know you are going to just brush that off or come back with a snide remark, but I don't care.

    Anyway...

    I know you expect me to jump on jmervyn's bandwagon here, so let me just get this out of the way. While I do believe global warming is a scam, I don't believe these emails are a smoking gun. Sure, from what little I've seen of them, there's plenty of questionable stuff in there to warrant further investigation. But as you yourself mentioned, internal emails are something that the general public probably shouldn't ever see. Not to hide information of course. They shouldn't see the emails because they are not written in a language the public would easily understand. On top of that, when it comes to leaked emails, you are generally getting half the conversation at best.




  5. #35

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by Glurin View Post
    That's because you are biased, though I'm not sure if you realize it.
    I'd like someone to explain to me what exactly they mean by "bias" (Hopefully, it's more than "holds the opposite opinion"). I was very much anti-GW theory for quite a while. Only in the last year or so did I decide there was enough evidence to switch camps.

    But here's a thumbs-up for your opinion on the emails. Quite unexpected. The ability to disagree with a faulty argument that supports your opinion is uncommon, especially on the internetz.



    ------------------------------------------
    "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

  6. #36
    IncGamers Member vdzele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    2,482

    Re: Global WarmingGate




    Btw, no one still got it right who is on my tar



    Last edited by vdzele; 26-11-2009 at 07:53.

  7. #37
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,200

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by vdzele View Post
    Btw, no one still got it right who is on my tar
    Sure I know . PM sent. What I wrote above was my previous guess about it.



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  8. #38
    IncGamers Member Qveasd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Moscow
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    Quote Originally Posted by krischan View Post
    BTW, I finally found out who that guy in your avatar is. I doubt that I'm the first, but who was quicker than me?
    Google answered that in a single search, but I guess that's cheating.



  9. #39
    Europe Trade Moderator krischan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Posts
    33,200

    Re: Global WarmingGate

    I actually stumbled over it.

    Is there a kind of Google search where you can upload a picture?



    D3 Trading Forums: Europe - America
    Diablo Wiki / Arreat Summit / ATMA / Forum Rules / Adria
    You know I'm born to lose / and gambling is for fools / but that's the way I like it, baby / I don't want to live forever!

  10. #40
    IncGamers Member BobCox2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    UnderYourDoorMat
    BattleTag What Me Worry?
    Posts
    10,818

    Re: Global WarmingGate


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •