Loading 5 Votes - +

Pretending the climate change emails aren't a crisis won't make them go away →www.guardian.co.uk

A discussion of the effects of the hacked climate change emails.

Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:

I should have written a current events article instead of being lazy and dropping a link. This guy brings up some interesting points and I know a lot of people on this site think climate change is a load of hooey.

Consider this a “bump” for my link.

Whenever someone throws out George Bush one knows that their argument is limited at best. Does it really matter that the the “majority” of deniers are conservative?

Was the data cooked or not? The evidence is definitely pointing that way. Was the peer review process hi-jacked? If you read the emails the answer is absolutely yes.

Was data thrown out? CRU, a HUGE data player for the IPCC, says yes.

The burden of proof is not on those rascal conservatives to smooth this travesty over.

I’ve noticed the raging debate started by Occams.

This thread only exaccerbates that debate, ironically by the one’s who called foul in the first place, who are now giving positive nerd-its to those who agree with them and negative nerd-its to those who don’t.

If you disagree, then you need only take a look in the mirror.

And you wonder why the conservative voices have been “drowned” out on this site.

Oh the humanity.

But the deniers’ campaign of lies, grotesque as it is, does not justify secrecy and suppression on the part of climate scientists. Far from it: it means that they must distinguish themselves from their opponents in every way. No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.

I really like this statement. Science, in my opinion, needs to take the high ground. Be objective seekers of – and teachers of – information. Test a hypothesis and transparently convey what you found as spin-less-ly as possible.

Instead, many scientists seem to be trying to make the “right” point, accomplish “good,” or be understood “properly.” Moralizing science makes it … well … not real science.

1 Vote  - +
Recent summary by wyldeling

Arstechnica just posted a summary of some of the controversy, including info on the process used by the scientists. Short, but a good read.

3 Votes  - +
Missing debate by Brandon

I ran across this editorial in the Oil and Gas Journal and I thought the last couple of lines were interesting:

Human activity does change the climate. It alters landscapes and increases greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. In terms of warming, the ramifications of those changes aren’t known—at least not to the certain extent the scandalized e-mail writers seem to have wanted everyone to believe. Without continued research and honest debate among scientists—debate unencumbered by politics—the ramifications of those changes can’t be known.

Among revelations from the e-mails purloined from the University of East Anglia, the most important is that such a debate has not yet occurred.

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

Can Trump make America great again?

14 votes, 1 comment