Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

I'm sure the originating site will remove the link once their bandwidth for the link increases dramatically.. unless it's cached.
I was attempting to get people's attention and speak sense, obviously, both the post and the image's intention failed. There is NO discussion occurring here, no debate, no information is exchanging just ego and chutzpah. Maybe a smidgen of somes abilities to use Google inappropriatly.

TCM, I didn't post an image. Just a link to an external sites image.

You know, I just looked back at the first 6,7 posts on this thread and the discussion was quite intelligent and peaceable until the STOP signs started showing up.

The only time it got personal was when two of us admonished each other to think for ourselves (or each other) or whatever LOL.

Seriously Scad, please tone down the effort to control what others do or say. Why do you feel compelled to do that?

Sceadwian said:

I'm sure the originating site will remove the link once their bandwidth for the link increases dramatically.. unless it's cached.
I was attempting to get people's attention and speak sense, obviously, both the post and the image's intention failed. There is NO discussion occurring here, no debate, no information is exchanging just ego and chutzpah. Maybe a smidgen of somes abilities to use Google inappropriatly.

TCM, I didn't post an image. Just a link to an external sites image.

Click to expand...

Actually, there WAS discussion here until the STOP signs started littering the thread. An entire pages worth. Sensible commentary and opinion. Even Brownout's opinion, which I disagree with, had plenty of value. It was only when he accused others of not thinking because he disagrees that I found it bothersome and I said my beef about it, and made a few jokes to lighten it up.

Come on man. Really. Join in. I HAVE made some observations and expressed opinion. I have made some social commentary and so have others. Again, how is a discussion about a newsworthy topic WRONG?

I heard this **broken link removed** on a local radio station. The person speaking is Professor Lindzen whose bio can be found **broken link removed**. I found the interview very enlightening.

Mike.

Sceadwian said:

I'm sure the originating site will remove the link once their bandwidth for the link increases dramatically.. unless it's cached.
I was attempting to get people's attention and speak sense, obviously, both the post and the image's intention failed. There is NO discussion occurring here, no debate, no information is exchanging just ego and chutzpah. Maybe a smidgen of somes abilities to use Google inappropriatly.

TCM, I didn't post an image. Just a link to an external sites image.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to when you Googled the image for the STOP sign?

For what I gathered from the links in the original post the issue is that they (whom ever they is exactly) have a problem with an issue that the present data is not necessarily showing a conclusive negative impact rise like they want to have it show in regards to human influence for the last several decades.

But rather enough new data is starting to show just the opposite of what the scaremongers and political groups want.
The new data regardless of having been manipulated is showing itself to possibly be far from being the conclusive evidence needed to show that we are negatively affecting our world environment.

Am I correct in this or did I misread too much information myself?

Pommie said:

I heard this **broken link removed** on a local radio station. The person speaking is Professor Lindzen whose bio can be found **broken link removed**. I found the interview very enlightening.

Mike.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, I have read much about his work.

I'm still frothing trying to figure out why a topic of far-reaching economic and social impact is considered trolling. But I am through with that argument because if you read the sequence of this thread, the objections became the distraction from a sensible discourse. No more about that.

ke5frf said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very first person on this thread that accused someone else of not thinking of themselves was you, sir.

From your first post: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"It's the brainwashed, lazy and unthinking that buys conspiracy theories based on stolen, trumped up and exaggerated misinformation."

Click to expand...

Bonus points to anyone who can find the words "lazy" and "brainwashed" before my posts. Also the phrase "unwilling to think for theirselves." This should be easy for anyone with eyes. Evidently, ke5frf has selective seeing. That's very useful for cherrypicking.

BrownOut said:

There is no climate gate. The stuff being pimped was obtained by hacking a computer at the Climate Research Unit, cherry-picked, distorted and disseminated by conspiracy theorists. Much of the excerpts were taken out of context, for example, "hiding" doesn't mean deceptively withholding information, in scientific jargon. Rather, it referees to the not using data that may diverge for reasons other then the phonomena being discussed. Similarly "trick" is just a way to describe a method to deal with a difficult issue, not a way to deceive. In fact, none of these "revelations" are anything new, as the data has been available since 1998. {b}It's the brainwashed, lazy and unthinking that buys conspiracy theories based on stolen, trumped up and exaggerated misinformation. [/b] This is just one more illustration of how far the war on science will go and how deceptive, dishonest, duplicitous and capricious those who hate science are. When someone substitutes name calling for science, he's not making a scientific argument, he's trying to make a play on emotions. Not good for science, not good for anyone.

Simply put, as far as climate gate goes, there is no "there" there.

Click to expand...

Was this not your first post?

I'm glad I quoted it before a convenient edit.

ke5frf said:

Oh, BTW I did find an alternate definition for "hide". Perhaps Phil Jones was speaking of animal skins?

The skin of an animal, especially the thick tough skin or pelt of a large animal.
tr.v. hid·ed, hid·ing, hides
To beat severely; flog.

Or perhaps he was referring to the flogging that he wished upon a skeptic in another e-mail.

(LOL, this is too funny as to be almost surreal.)

Click to expand...

And yet you've utterly failed to explain how one hides something he freely publishes? What a surprise.

And please produce any e-mail where I wished flogging on anyone, or else please cease lying.

So far I have no problem with this thread. For the most part everyone is stating their opinions and beliefs. No two people ever agree on stuff like this. The flaming has been kept reasonable and taken fairly. Or at least I am not upset or put off by anyones comments so far.

If someone can provide me with something new and give me further information that is deemed as reasonable and trustworthy I will accept it and change my views of how we all live accordingly. I am by no means above hearing new ideas and opinions about any topic as long as its kept in a more civil tone and presentation.

As far as my personal opinions on how we interact with our environment I am more Eco friendly than many but not all.
Personally I have seen many things that are considered environmentally friendly that have been proven to be wrong or inconclusive at best and that gives me no reason to follow them or waste my time and money on them.

The skeptics have only name-calling, personal insults and unsubstianted claims that the the science of global warming is in decline. That's the problem.

For anyone interested there was another **broken link removed** on the same radio station discussing the leaked emails.

Mike.

BrownOut said:

And yet you've utterly failed to explain how one hides something he freely publishes? What a surprise.

And please produce any e-mail where I wished flogging on anyone, or else please cease lying.

Click to expand...

Brownout. Have you not actually READ the e-mails by Phil Jones? How can you comment on this topic, and the context of the emails, without having knowledge of the content?

It was Phil Jones, THE CRU administrator, who wished the "flogging" upon a skeptic, and it was much publicized that he said this.

Please go read the e-mails and THEN come comment.

And actually, I did explain how someone can "hide" something that is published...by not publishing it anymore and deciding to neglect the data in hopes that the lay public, (the ultimate judge if democracy prevails) will never catch the omission. By downplaying it amongst peers, by withholding it in future publications, by turning a blind eye in hopes that the problem fades from memory. The discussions are in the e-mails, ways to thwart opposing data by refusing it in peer review, by discussions on how to get thorns in side removed from editorialships, etc etc. 250 Mbytes of damning evidence, yet you cite "context" without even knowing the content????

OK Brownout, I do see where another poster who can defend himself used those same terms. I had supposed since I started the thread that you had aimed your comments at me. My mistake. So, in fact you were the second person to use those terms. Either way, you both should refrain and comprehend that alternative opinions from your own are not always uninformed.


Oh, BTW. Maybe your name is Phil Jones and thus the confusion?

ke5frf said:

OK Either way, you both should refrain and comprehend that alternative opinions from your own are not always uninformed.

Click to expand...

You should take your own advise.

Pommie said:

For anyone interested there was another **broken link removed** on the same radio station discussing the leaked emails.

Mike.

Click to expand...

I am having trouble getting my player to work. I'll have to work on that in the AM.

BrownOut said:

You should take your own advise.

Click to expand...

I do not believe you to be uninformed. But I would appreciate familiarizing yourself with names like Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, etc and recognize them in the discussion (and the context for why they are players in the events) before accusing me of accusing you of wanting to flog someone. It looks kind of silly and reactive.

I'm familiar with those names. Why would you make the assumption that I don't. I thought you and I was having the discussion about the definition of hide, as you were posting in response to what I said about it. Either way, you assume too much about what I do and don't know. But that doesn't surprise me.

It was Phil Jones who used the word Hide, and it was Phil Jones who spoke of flogging a skeptic. It was you who reacted, when I never said anything about you. We weren't talking about YOUR defintion of hide, we were talking about the climate scientists. They are the ones using the word, not you. How on EARTH are you, or even I, for that matter, in a position to know their meaning was anything other than what Webster's defines it as? How do you know they were using some science-speak jargon? I know how, because Al Gore said so on CNN.

And where did I link to the hacked data? I linked to Steve McIntyre's site and an editorial blog, not the e-mails. See, you didn't even take the time to read the links, yet you comment. You already have your talking points it seems.

I'm sorry. Why can't you discuss what THEY said in the e-mails instead of what I say? What I say is unimportant, as is what you say. We don't have the power to move economies upon publication of doctored data as do THEY.

Why do your trust men whom you have never met so? Because you WANT to believe them, because they hold the title scientist. It used to be that the title "priest, or "reverend" commanded that kind of respect, not so long ago. I guess it fits.