Thread: The Great Climategate Debate @ MIT World

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The amount isn't the problem, it's the rate of change. Animals can evolve to slow changes, the problem is that it's changing at a rate never seen before. Really fast changes cause really massive extensions.



Way way way waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay outside of a normal deviation. In science you always look at the simplest explanation first. In the past 150 years, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have skyrocketed. Cars and industry put out huge amounts of COs. Simplest explanation: Industrialization has increased atmospheric CO2. The fact that all scientific data backs that up is just icing on the cake.

Haven't you been paying attention? Mann fudged his dendroclimatology data, which is where the labelless graph you posted comes from. It was faked in order to exaggerate the warming of the 20th century and to erase the medieval warming period.

Do some research. Look up the hockey stick debacle (the word debacle could be replaced with scam, fraud, etc) Look up Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998, and then look up Steve McIntyre. The graph you posted is a complete fraud.

In science, you always look at your sources first to make sure the data is sound and the process is repeatable, so that you don't make a complete fool of yourself when someone points out that others have already checked and found out that the data is wrong, and the process was not repeatable.

Haven't you been paying attention? Mann fudged his dendroclimatology data, which is where the labelless graph you posted comes from. It was faked in order to exaggerate the warming of the 20th century and to erase the medieval warming period.

Do some research. Look up the hockey stick debacle (the word debacle could be replaced with scam, fraud, etc) Look up Mann Bradley and Hughes 1998, and then look up Steve McIntyre. The graph you posted is a complete fraud.

In science, you always look at your sources first to make sure the data is sound and the process is repeatable, so that you don't make a complete fool of yourself when someone points out that others have already checked and found out that the data is wrong, and the process was not repeatable.

Dumbest post I've seen it quite some time. Try again.

Originally Posted by Xei

Dumbest post I've seen it quite some time. Try again.

Can't you see the incredible irony in this? Your post has nothing to do with the topic, contributes nothing to the discussion and does nothing to contradict the post you quoted. Not only that, the post you quoted argued from the same position that your previous posts had adopted. Without a little evidence to the contrary, we'll have to assume you have assumed the childlike position of 'see someone you normally disagree with and immediately call them stupid for no reason'.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Can't you see the incredible irony in this? Your post has nothing to do with the topic, contributes nothing to the discussion and does nothing to contradict the post you quoted. Not only that, the post you quoted argued from the same position that your previous posts had adopted. Without a little evidence to the contrary, we'll have to assume you have assumed the childlike position of 'see someone you normally disagree with and immediately call them stupid for no reason'.

I'm going to keep quoting your posts for a record of your epic hole digging.

I don't see why I should feel obliged to agree with somebody just because they're on the same 'side' as me. Such comments clearly illustrate your primitive partisan mindset. Neither do I disagree with somebody because I usually disagree with them. Same conclusion. I disagreed with you because I'm interested in the objective truth and everything you said is totally wrong.

The labelless graph you refer to has a nice big label down the left hand side saying CO2 CONCENTRATION. It has nothing to do with temperature you dolt! It illustrates the large increase in CO2 concentrations in the last century which is a very well-established scientific fact. Michael Mann's dodgy hockey-stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your knee-jerk reaction to seeing hockey-stick shaped data and automatically calling 'bullshit' without even reading it is pretty revealing about your mindset too.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm going to keep quoting your posts for a record of your epic hole digging.

I don't see why I should feel obliged to agree with somebody just because they're on the same 'side' as me. Such comments clearly illustrate your primitive partisan mindset. Neither do I disagree with somebody because I usually disagree with them. Same conclusion. I disagreed with you because I'm interested in the objective truth and everything you said is totally wrong.

The labelless graph you refer to has a nice big label down the left hand side saying CO2 CONCENTRATION. It has nothing to do with temperature you dolt! It illustrates the large increase in CO2 concentrations in the last century which is a very well-established scientific fact. Michael Mann's dodgy hockey-stick graph has absolutely nothing to do with this. Your knee-jerk reaction to seeing hockey-stick shaped data and automatically calling 'bullshit' without even reading it is pretty revealing about your mindset too.

Xei, you're ridiculous. You're a confrontational jackass. I didn't see the labels. Maybe I jumped to conclusions and that's why I didn't look hard enough. Everything is a fight to you that you have to win. The internet is only fun if someone gets humiliated. Except, it doesn't work like that this time because I'm perfectly fine with being wrong and admitting it. I don't get humiliated for making a mistake. Are you even capable of discussing something without slinging insults and trying to put people down?

Butthurt much?

Don't pretend like you weren't insulting; you were, and it was baseless.

Come on, it was a dumb post. And when I told you it was a dumb post, did you check it to see if I had a point? No, you ranted about me being stupid and biased.

I apologise for being so blunt in the first place but really, you specifically complained about the issue of a graph having no labels when it actually plainly had labels, and I thought that was funny enough to warrant my bluntness.

Cmon guys, we're not subscribed to this to read insults.