Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of AGW?

[SpikedHelmet]

Baw baw science baw.

Anyone else here subscribe to the George Carlin school of thought?

In a nutshell, the Earth has been around for billions of years and life for about 1-1.5 billion of them. If it survived countless asteroid impacts, intense solar flares, increased volcanic activity, massive earthquakes, shifting of the magnetic fields, and climate changes that would make El Nino look like baby shit, it can survive whatever the fuck we can do to it. Our survival is a different matter, but who the fuck cares about that. The planet has had a billion years to design itself into a self-sustained and self-contained, adaptable, regenerating ecosystem. Short of the sun exploding there's fuck all that can be done about it.

[tombom]

Baw baw science baw.

Anyone else here subscribe to the George Carlin school of thought?

In a nutshell, the Earth has been around for billions of years and life for about 1-1.5 billion of them. If it survived countless asteroid impacts, intense solar flares, increased volcanic activity, massive earthquakes, shifting of the magnetic fields, and climate changes that would make El Nino look like baby shit, it can survive whatever the fuck we can do to it. Our survival is a different matter, but who the fuck cares about that. The planet has had a billion years to design itself into a self-sustained and self-contained, adaptable, regenerating ecosystem. Short of the sun exploding there's fuck all that can be done about it.

yes but i rather think some people would like to live for a few more years

[BaNa]

Come now do not underestimate us, we could nuke all this shit to ashes in like 15 minutes.

Something to wonder about is what will we do when the billions of people in india and china start taking on the lifestyle that we lead. Imo sustainable living is more interesting than "just" carbon emissions.

[Master-Athmos]

This is why one cannot trust wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... 70719.aspx

Over 5000 edited articles, several hundreds deleted and getting over 2000 people banned - that's quite a record...

[Gota]

This is why one cannot trust wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... 70719.aspx

Over 5000 edited articles, several hundreds deleted and getting over 2000 people banned - that's quite a record...

If you'd consider what % that is of the overall articles and users I think youd actually say how amazing Wikipedia is.

[Master-Athmos]

Well for a single guy those are quite some numbers imo. And for just removing a certain piece of info from wikipedia they sound sufficient which is what all the work was about...

[PicassoCT]

GRAWP WAS HERE

[momfreeek]

This is why one cannot trust wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... 70719.aspx

Over 5000 edited articles, several hundreds deleted and getting over 2000 people banned - that's quite a record...

There's an old phrase: 'Don't trust everything you read'. Its hardly a new phenomenon. I can think of certain 'news' outlets that I'd trust far less on face value.

On the one hand, having many eyes to review and correct means less mistakes and a greater wealth of understanding to draw from.

On the other hand, anyone with their own agenda can contribute their own propoganda. It is of course up to the reader to deduce where this bending may occur as it is with information available from any source.

Personally I still don't know who to trust. One man edited a lot of articles (nothing wrong with that) and banned a lot of users. I don't know the answer to the question: which side/s is the one spreading propoganda? There would be nothing wrong with banning a lot of sparse accounts that are being used to spread disinformation. The only thing I am sure of is that I can only see one side with due motive.

Still I see no coherant argument to disprove the climate change evidence. Only denyers and people prying tenuous holes in the evidence that has been presented. The denial reminds me less of science and more of modern politics, where spreading doubt and attacking reputations masquerade as valid forms of argument.

[smoth]

If you'd consider what % that is of the overall articles and users I think youd actually say how amazing Wikipedia is.

I once edited the wiki entry to say martha stewart created java and her favorite food was live bats or something like that... the bats part stayed for I don't know how long...

[Gota]

If you'd consider what % that is of the overall articles and users I think youd actually say how amazing Wikipedia is.

I once edited the wiki entry to say martha stewart created java and her favorite food was live bats or something like that... the bats part stayed for I don't know how long...

So?

[America74]

...

...

...

... I do not belong to the Church of Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change, nor have I ever. This climate change thing is.. its just silly. During the middle/medieval era in the earth's history, it was Hot, Hot, HOT! But it was perfect for growing crops and stuff. Agriculture was the main thing. That was one thousand years ago. Anyone catching my drift?

Another thing: Why are people afraid? Do you folks realize that there is a God, a Creator, who watches over us every nanosecond? You people believe that MAN is so POWERFUL WE could actually DO THIS? This is nonsense. Global warming is nothing but human pride.

[Argh]

Aww... not on the frickin' carpet... again! Bad sock puppet! Bad!

[America74]

lol @ Argh. XD

[Journier]

lol.

i cant believe you guys are arguing this after all the truth came out.

[Neddie]

There is no truth.

[Satirik]

This is why one cannot trust wikipedia:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... 70719.aspx

Over 5000 edited articles, several hundreds deleted and getting over 2000 people banned - that's quite a record...

There's an old phrase: 'Don't trust everything you read'. Its hardly a new phenomenon. I can think of certain 'news' outlets that I'd trust far less on face value.

On the one hand, having many eyes to review and correct means less mistakes and a greater wealth of understanding to draw from.

On the other hand, anyone with their own agenda can contribute their own propoganda. It is of course up to the reader to deduce where this bending may occur as it is with information available from any source.

Personally I still don't know who to trust. One man edited a lot of articles (nothing wrong with that) and banned a lot of users. I don't know the answer to the question: which side/s is the one spreading propoganda? There would be nothing wrong with banning a lot of sparse accounts that are being used to spread disinformation. The only thing I am sure of is that I can only see one side with due motive.

Still I see no coherant argument to disprove the climate change evidence. Only denyers and people prying tenuous holes in the evidence that has been presented. The denial reminds me less of science and more of modern politics, where spreading doubt and attacking reputations masquerade as valid forms of argument.

well you just don't read the right things ... there is A LOT of argument, and from what i read (ofc they can still lie for fun) the current "global warming" is because of the sun, and has nothing to do with CO2 and is already over ... the only good thing about that global warming hoax is that people now understand we only have one planet, and we won't be able to live without it before a while so we'd better save our ressources if we want an exponnential growth

edit: i could show you some conferences about it from great scientists but french only :)

[Master-Athmos]

I share your opinion but I haven't heard of such a french conference about it. Could you give some more info please?