• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Legacy of Climategate -- Ten Years Later

eman623 said:
This is typical of the yeasayers. They don't really treat this as a scientific debate in search of the truth. For them, this is a political matter and their only objective is to win. They take an adversarial pose and will distort and cherry-pick the facts, conveniently forget to provide any arguments that go against their conclusions. And whan all else fails, they will simply lie to your face.

Who did the investigations - which were really-self-investigations done at the behest of East Anglia and they chose the investigators? Did they have a stake in the outcome? (Trick question - the answer is yes). Maybe the investigators need to be investigated. And then those investigators. We're going to need a lot more investigators.
Click to expand...

Post your evidence. I see none
 
Jack Hays said:
Unfortunately that's not evidence. It's an example of the avoidance of evidence. "Denial" would be the appropriate word.
Click to expand...

You can deny the facts if you like....but they remain the facts
 
vegas giants said:
Post your evidence. I see none
Click to expand...

Jack Hays has already done so. If any of those six were a truly independent investigation, then only one would have been needed. That there were six tells me this was yet another attempt to create a anowstorm of BS to (surprise) obfuscate the truth.
 
lol "climategate"

First of all, the overuse of "-gate" these days is incredibly tacky if you want to sound salacious and sensational. You might want to use a different buzz word if you want to tell a bunch of lies about the state of science.

Second, it's going to be hard to prove that thousands of scientists world wide have been involved in a massive misinformation campaign and scandal. Science works by hard evidence and not by democratic consensus. The model shifts when the data tells us it should, and all the data points toward the same forlorn conclusion.

This belongs in the conspiracy theory forum, where lies and fiction can be peddled as truth.
 
Whenever I see a website that promotes itself as a "fact checker" I settle in for a heaping helping of opinion dressed up as "fact". I am seldom disappointed, especially when AGW is the topic.
 
eman623 said:
Whenever I see a website that promotes itself as a "fact checker" I settle in for a heaping helping of opinion dressed up as "fact". I am seldom disappointed, especially when AGW is the topic.
Click to expand...

Facts have a liberal bias. Lol
 
Northern Light said:
lol "climategate"

First of all, the overuse of "-gate" these days is incredibly tacky if you want to sound salacious and sensational. You might want to use a different buzz word if you want to tell a bunch of lies about the state of science.

Second, it's going to be hard to prove that thousands of scientists world wide have been involved in a massive misinformation campaign and scandal. Science works by hard evidence and not by democratic consensus. The model shifts when the data tells us it should, and all the data points toward the same forlorn conclusion.

This belongs in the conspiracy theory forum, where lies and fiction can be peddled as truth.
Click to expand...

The term "Climategate" originated ten years ago.
There was never any claim about "thousands of scientists." The scandal involved only a handful, and was based on their own emails.
You should learn the facts before you pop off and parade your ignorance.
 
Jack Hays said:
The term "Climategate" originated ten years ago.
There was never any claim about "thousands of scientists." The scandal involved only a handful, and was based on their own emails.
You should learn the facts before you pop off and parade your ignorance.
Click to expand...

You trot it out like it disproves modern climate science, when it doesn't.

There is no ignorance. Your agenda is quite clear and I will continue to call it out.

You'll use anything and everything to discredit modern climate science, even though you never post anything peer reviewed or any evidence worth a damn.

You are lying. You always lie.
 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT="]Anyone who wants to rebut claims of exoneration [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.175.4664&rep=rep1&type=pdf"]can use this Ross McKitrick paper for reference.[/URL]
Click to expand...


You can spam that same reference 500 times.


While I present many examples of how you are wrong. Lol
 
Northern Light said:
You trot it out like it disproves modern climate science, when it doesn't.

There is no ignorance. Your agenda is quite clear and I will continue to call it out.

You'll use anything and everything to discredit modern climate science, even though you never post anything peer reviewed or any evidence worth a damn.

You are lying. You always lie.
Click to expand...

I probably post more peer-reviewed research than any other poster in this subforum.
The default to accusations of lying is a marker for the absence of an argument.
If by "modern climate science" you mean AGW orthodoxy then you have it backwards. AGW orthodoxy is increasingly discredited by modern climate science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom