Not that it was of much consequence but people and big oil seemed to latch on to it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science At least it showed the scientific community that they have to play the media alot better if any situations mean governments have to take action. Poor Chevron and co without BP its gonna be hard for them to keep pumping money behind the fight to keep their Share prices up ...
I don't know whether or not to be outraged or just try to stay calm. Either way, someone got away with murder during all of this.
It's not like this will have any impact on the hilly billies who are persuaded that global warming is a hoax created by the New World Order to let them kill your babies.
The hoax is that humans are to blame for global warming. Weather patterns change, climates change, global warming and cooling is a natural occurence on the earth. It is rediculous that they would make we the people the cause when natural disasters like volcanos, even just one exploding volcano, can spew out more C02 into the atmosphere than humans could world wide in decades. But whatever, a huge hunch tells me its false, and no amount of B.S. is going to make me change my mind. I haven't read the article yet, but like anything, you can simply lie and say "No it never happened". I don't believe anything that comes from mainstream anymore, it's all B.S. anyway.
I thought he was actually going to try and make a genuine point until I read "But whatever, a huge hunch tells me its false, and no amount of B.S. is going to make me change my mind". If you're going to be closed-minded fundamentalist about it why do you even bother entering a discussion?
Funny for you to call someone else close-minded higgs, considering you're one of the most, if not, THE most close-minded person I have encountered in these forums, and ANY forum I have ever visited. Take a few moments, and think of the word close-minded, and then take a long look in the mirror. You're so locked into your own consensus of knowledge and thought that anything not agreeing with it is totally absurd to the point where you have to pick at people by stereotyping them with words like "fundamentalist" or "hilly billies". At least some people who have their criticism present it in a polite manner, but you have to go about it like some obnoxious snob who thinks he knows everything. Special thanks to you for making my visitation at the sc2forum lounge a most enjoyable one. Did ya notice the sarcasm in that last bit by the way? Now, in the future, would I be able to voice my opinion without being attacked for not having a point or should I be the obnoxious one from now on and do the same to you since you never really seem to have a genuine point in anything you say either? Let's discuss then. I believe that this climategate thing is near smoking gun proof that the data is being manipulated to try to exaggerate the dangers of global warming, and to further convince humans that their activity is the source which I also believe to be another blatant lie that is behind a more political agenda... like trying to force a carbon tax. I am all for going green, I don't want my home to be polluted, but I don't think making more of a debt slave out of us is the answer, and I don't think that our carbon emissions is going to kill the earth or even us. I live in America, and you're probably living way out yonder where it is nice and cozy, so I don't think you would understand yet what I mean by debt slave until you move here, and try to live out on your own. The taxes and regulations here are so atrocious that I frequently fight in court to this day on these issues. So how am I suppose to believe that the climategate scam was a hoax, just because it says so in the news? If you have ANYTHING to say to convince me, please do!
Climategate wasn't about exaggerating or falsifying data to make it into something that it is not. They had several lines on a graph each representing different method of measuring the temperature over past X centuries. All of them followed in tight nit and in the increasing trend. The only problem was that at around 1960/70s the data that was taken from tree rings started to deviate sharply down and scattered off from the other lines. Scientists still don't know why this happens. So what they did is that they have covered up that line to get rid of this 'cosmetic' flaw for their presentation. It was probably unethical and wrong of them to do so but the fact remains that the data supports global warming.
refusing to change your opinion is closed-minded, sure. that only matters for topics of opinion, though. however refusing to listen to any new evidence and data, i.e. that's being willfully ignorant.
This could be an interesting read for you Rebel http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics Also don't forget big oil and the bush administration threatened and damaged the reputation of numerous scientists who did studies concerning man's contribution to global warming. Big oil is still fighting hard against mainstream science ...so i mean contrarians can pick either side.
Wait so HiggsBoson, are you saying that the deviation was a technical error or did the methods used actually produced this data? I am still not convinced. asdf unless its outright lies, I am willing to listen to evidence to change my opinions. The problem is in this world it's hard to tell what is BS and what is truth, but in these trying times if the source comes from a mainstream outlet chances are it is BS Marinefreak, that's interesting let me tell you. Here, I have some media for you as well, it's a vid I pulled off youtube, I hope you enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgXLH8EJPMY&feature=related