good post, but evidence did come out. correspondence between scientists leading the charge, privately discussing how to fudge data and mislead the public when hotter temperatures were not showing up a year or so ago. they knew it could hurt their funding, and they discussed how to fake the data to protect their cash cow.

Yep.....

you missed this

you are very careful not to name names, I note.

presumably you decline to name names because you are talking about the most heavily investigated science "scandal" of all time.

Perhaps you care to tell me what the results of the investigations were?

I'd love to discuss it detail by detail with you. I think it's a fascinating case study.

I personally hope to see even more investigations of this famous "scandal" - I think it has been a boon to the scientific community, and a much needed push towards greater transparency and education of the layperson.

I strongly urge you to urge your congresspersons and anyone else you can get to listen to continue investigating.

sorry, I don't understand - what did I miss?

just a minute ago it didn't exist, and now you want to discuss it?

your whole point is obviously that you know more about this than the rest of us media-fed sheep, so go ahead, out with it. what were the results of the 'investigation' by other scientists who needed to keep their cash cow intact?

i don't give a fuck.

as i mentioned previously, it was simply a comment based on a recent end of the year article.

So, you don't give a fuck about any possible retort to your postings?

ugh.

you wrote this
i replied with this
this guy chimes in with this
i replied with this
you then wrote this

dude, it was a comment based on a fucking article i read that stated as such. it wasn't my fucking opinion, i was simple relaying the conclusion. get off my fucking back.

fuck, you gfy climatologist can ruin fucking wet dream.

You're the one making the attack, it's only polite for me to allow you to take the strike.

however, in addition, it's important to outline the quality of the knowledge on which you are basing your attack.

I have argued that it is purely media "knowledge", that you have been told to say a certain thing, and you don't even understand what it is that you have been told to repeat.

that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire.

prove me wrong. explain the issues, and explain why the investgations of the most heavily investigated science scandal of our time, and possibly ever, were incorrect.

You're awfully upset over one question.

He made his claim, you're just attempting to refute it with circular reasoning. Ball is in your court.

you are using good, although transparent, debate tactics i will grant you that. the problem you have run into is that i have no interest in debating you.

your assertion that media profits from global warming more than scientists is laughable.

you believe in scientists. i believe in scientists.

when scientists can get billions of dollars for agreeing with certain data interpretations, i see the billions of dollars and understand.

Nope.

In a formal debate his circular reasoning would have him looking foolish.

and aonther gfy thread degrades.

no, i just couldn't give a fuck about a gfy poster named mqtrheels making unsubstantiated claims about nasa.

if you have a link to an article stating that nasa gets every one of its temp readings from airports across the globe, i'd prolly read it for fun.

otherwise, as stated, i don't give a fuck.

Thread is still on topic.

Btw, pot and kettling is not fun.

Obviously, you're so upset you haven't any idea who is making what claims.

Go back and read this thread, fool.

clear as mud - but I will guess that you are trying to say "what about climategate?", but are being cagey because you already know that none of the investigations of climategate found any wrongdoing.

with one exception - it was considered a violation of science ethics to share data from a scientist outside the east anglia circle within east anglia without permission (I believe that was the finding on that particular breach, if I have a detail wrong I still stand behind my general description as accurate enough for gfy). But that sharing had nothing to do with the commonly discussed and published issues in the east anglia emails, so it doesn't apply to climategate as a political issue.

There was an additional civil finding, that east aglia was not responding properly to FOI requests, but that isn't considered an ethical breach. The scientists argued that FOI requests were bombarding the center at an unprecedented rate and that they didn't have staff or time in place to answer them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

as I said, I urge your side to continue investigations. and i fervently support greater scientific transparency. if climate information is going to be subjected to greater public scrutiny some sort of system to make that possible, including paying staff to put data onto open servers and making subscripttion publications more available to the public, should be instituted.

but if you continue to claim wrongdoing, without new evidence, when 3 investigations in the UK and one here in the US have all said none occured, then your side is simply ignorant at best and intentionally lying for political purposes at worst.

personally, I think you are both ignorant, which is common, AND intentionally lying for political purposes; but I'm willing to allow that simple ignorance is sufficient explanation, given the average state of the american mind.

Anyone else find irony in someone attacking one's intellect, while using Wikipedia citations?

if you are unwilling to debate, you are. if you chose to believe that scientists are inherently more corrupt than media personalities, then you do.

there's nothing I can do about what you chose to believe.

I try to be intentionally transparent. one of my goals is to use gfy as a tool to teach a higher level of debate and rhetoric. if we webmasters can't learn to debate more effectively, then there's little hope for the less intelligent castes in our society.

I contemplated that irony, and checked the wiki for factualness before posting it.

I warrant that the top two paragraphs are as accurate a representation of the case as one is likely to find in any commonly available media.

I've read 2 of the 4 investigation documents completely, and read snippets from the other two, so I have as reasonable a sense of the issues and findings as one is likley to find in a layperson.

I strongly urge and invite you to find a factual error and demonstrate that my warrant of the wiki's accuracy is mistaken.

no, what you are saying (said) is: "Global warming my ass. I had frost on my car".

I am not saying I believe that we are causing the earth to warm up or if it is just a natural occurrence, either way, 90% of the people don't even understand what global warming is. If i had a penny for every time some idiot says " wow record cold today, so much for global warming". etc... and they have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

it's not circular reasoning. I am using specific rhetorical techniques, but they are not circular reasoning, which has a specific meaning.

I am circling him, as one does in a fight, yes - prompting him to take a strike, which he wisely declined to do.

as for the ball, I am discussing the "ball" in several other conversations at the same time as I was circling PG.

if you care to pick up the ball, i'd be just as happy to debate it with you.

To be quite fair, I wouldn't trust an investigation from a government. Being versed in politics, I'm sure you understand.

I also wouldn't trust an internal investigation from PSU, as they're investigating themselves.

Edit: Also PSU is a publically funded school. It'd be more than foolish of them to out their own, especially with the powers that be bearing down on them in the hopes of kickbacks.

It's circular reasoning, the most common fallacy in debate.

Him giving his stance, granted without citation, was his "strike".

You took his statement, and instead of trying to refute an extremely clear statement, and asked him to prove you wrong that his claim is from an entity other than from the grasp of Murdoch.

Burden of proof was to be on you, and instead you twisted it into leading assumptions which then lead to a leading request all while cloaking your point.

Your intentions were clear, and it was circular reasoning.

I rambled a bit.

Put simply, you relied on your own proposition of your belief that his claim was from the grasp of Murdoch.

which is why I strongly urge your side to conduct it's own investigations, and i strongly hope that further investigations are carried out.

so, what about it - why is your side unwilling to conduct it's own public investigations?

surely given all the emphasis your side places on this issue, someone on your side MUST have investigated, or at least have plans to investigate.

No? Nobody on your side? I wonder why? The emails are in the public domain now, there is nothing preventing your side from examining them and comparing their judgements with teh published investigations, looking for bias. Nothing stopping them from interviewing, nothing stopping them from asking other experts, nothing stopping them from publishing their findings.

Not a thing is stopping them. Perhaps they are waiting for a letter from you, asking why they haven't done so?


---

there is another kind of investogation being carried out by the peer review process within the science community, but it will be several more years before the judgements of that community are known.

in no way shape or form did I rely on that suggestion. My rhetoric was a challenge to the quality of his information, and that challenge stands on its own, and can easily be refuted simply by presenting the quality of the information that he had.

At which point I am free to examine the actual quality of the information presented.

I suggested the murdoch source as editorial comment at the end of my rhetorical presentation.

it is false and either ignorant or malicious for you to claim that i used the
murdorch source comment as a critical element in my debate tactic.

however, I do stand behind my editorial comment. If you seriously believe that he was not influenced by murdochian media rhetoric, I challenge you to present to me an alternative explanation.

then I will happily examine with you the quality of your evidence.

Define "your side" because I'm quite unsure as to what you're referring to.

Talking about the denial of global warming? There's quite a few. Obviously, the largest are energy companies.

Do you even know who funded the CRU during its founding in 71? Do you know who still funds the CRU?

What about Stringer who denied the report's findings saying there's not enough information one way or the other?

Roger Pielke?

I mean, what are you looking for, an entire list? If you're unable to establish contrarian reviews, you're not looking hard enough.

I happily invite you to take his "extremely clear statement" (which was not clear, which he was smart enough to realize), and place it on the table as if it was your own, and I will debate it. again. because I understand that these points have to be hammered home over and over again.

and i would really enjoy having someone on your side present an argument I haven't heard before. new ideas and new arguments are one of the great pleasures debate has to offer.

tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you. You can bring up any point you like, and I will refrain from asking you to provide it's provenance. No matter what it's source, I will treat it as if it were an argument right from the pages of a source no more biased than scientific american.

that means no mention of murdochian rhetoric on my part, even if its staring us in the face. during this part of the debate.

afterwards I'll point out the provenance of your rhetoric as seems appropriate. editorial comment after a debate is part of the grand tradition, and I wouldn't begrudge you yours.

Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

"that you have no real sense of the actual events or issues involved, and haven't really studied it or even thought about it much, and that your sole source of knowledge on the subject comes from well known media sources, particularly from the murdoch media empire."

Look at your following sentence after that.

"prove me wrong."


Circular reasoning.

Don't play daft, please.

Serious lols @ you.

I see you also enjoy ad hom.

You're up to par on your logical fallacies.

its considered critical to provide a source when presenting such information as part of an argument.

for instance, a search with the keyword "professor latif" under google news produces no results which seem applicable, nor do they seem to find a comparative "latif", or indicate that such a person exists.

http://news.google.com/news/search?a...fessor+L atif

it's not unlikley that some professor made some such statement. altho, it doesn't fit the published measurements, and we have to take a look at his source data.

however, that statement, in quotes, when entered into google news, has no results. http://news.google.com/news/search?a...tures+cool.%22

are you sure this event happened recently? do you have better keywords, since you seem determined to make us search rather than providing a source link?

since google doesn't find it, perhaps you have been bamboozled, it would be interesting to examine your source.

BBC is one source.

Latif believes it'll rebound much worse than expected, though.

I thought you would decline.

you also apparently do not understand the meaning of ad hominem.

this is where the arguments of your side always end up on this subject. you don't have a leg to stand on so you back away.

this problem is caused by your reliance on bad sources. there are actually great argumenst that can be made, but you guys never make them, because all the bullets you have were manufactured for you by people who know how to generate emotional hooks but don't understand the science.

I urge you to consider how ypu could make arguments that actually make sense and aren't so easily refuted.

here's a clue - nothing can be done about global warming. it's too late to fix it. use that as the basis of your arguments and you can win, or at least debate to a draw.

Sorry, here it is:
nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fd981fbc-47e4-4318-9980-ff5d5a2f3c3b

His name is Dr. Mojib Latif, a prize-winning climate and ocean scientist from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel

He thinks Global Warming is real but that we won't see rising temps for a few decades... lol. :upsidedow

No, I just choose not to debate with someone that clearly uses both selective reasoning and logical fallacies. I presume you don't just sit and talk to walls all day expecting a response, do you?


Now, you're denying the following is Ad hom?

"tell ya what - I'll tie one hand behind my back, just for you."

Let me make it extremely easy for you to understand ad hom.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

You did it to Green, now you're trying with me.

There's a reason you completely ignored my reply to you supplying exactly what you asked for, reverted to another post of mine and then replied with ad hom.