Climategate turned on its head this time

[Yoweigh]

his whole point is that recurrent weather patterns such as el nino and la nina are setup by ocean currents. ocean currents are determined by the continental shelves, among many other things. since there was only on continent way back when the ocean currents were drastically different.

[Boondock]

Originally Posted by lapaz

While I'm no expert, your comments illustrate why experts' opinions carry more weight, because there are many ways to ascertain weather conditions over millions of years. Whether we have written records of weather for a couple hundred years is irrelevant, because the unwritten evidence reveals the weather.

Yes, I know that there are many ways to ascertain that. How accurate is it though? There has been at least 1 extinction level event in the history of Earth, that we know of, that killed off most all living things. Looking at tree rings and ocean sediment, currents and water levels would change with an event like that. A lot of the Earths living conditions would. I point to the "reliability" of the unwritten evidence due to E.L.E's.

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by Boondock

How accurate is it though?

Considering that it's based on observational data, a lot more accurate than your guesses and speculations.

[Boondock]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

his whole point is that recurrent weather patterns such as el nino and la nina are setup by ocean currents. ocean currents are determined by the continental shelves, among many other things. since there was only on continent way back when the ocean currents were drastically different.

Yes, I understand that. How do we know that the worlds current weather wasnt or isnt a repeating weather pattern? For example: what if during the Jurassic period of the dinosaurs this was the weather pattern (our current weather), but due to the E.L.E this information isnt attainable. Observations in natures weather patterns would be skewed by such a catastrophic event.

[Yoweigh]

because the continents have changed!

[Boondock]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

Considering that it's based on observational data, a lot more accurate than your guesses and speculations.

What? Ive said that I think our observational data would be limited due to man's limited records of the Earths history and that past E.L.E's could distort some of mans natural observation data.

[Yoweigh]

don't bother replying. you've made it clear that you trust your own speculations over the the scientific method. there's no point in debating with you. you're the only person on my ignore list now.

[Boondock]

Cool! Have a great weekend!

[Sarcastic]

I call this "Half of the EE right now"

or

"The Brute Force Method of Disputing Science"

Originally Posted by Boondock

I'm right. You're wrong.

Originally Posted by Everyone

No, here's why...(lenghty explanation)

Originally Posted by Boondock

That doesn't make sense, what if it's wrong? What then?

Originally Posted by Everyone

But it's not, because (lots of science and facts)

Originally Posted by Boondock

Yes it is, because (terrible misrepresentation of basic scientific idea)

Originally Posted by Famous Dead Scientist

:rolls over in grave:

Originally Posted by Everyone

You really don't understand this concept, the science says (science stuff that's correct)

Originally Posted by Boondock

Ha. Obviously none of that is true, maybe, or probably because I don't want it to be

Originally Posted by Everyone

Oh, screw it

Originally Posted by Boondock

Told you so.

[Yoweigh]

the guy is so impervious to logic that he doesn't even know what the word means. there is no way for me to participate in discussion with him without resorting to name calling, and the mods have already called me out on it. i will choose to ignore him instead. i can't do that if i can see his posts because they infuriate me.

[Taurus]

Originally Posted by Boondock

No, history is not useless... I guess thats why humans are doomed to repeat it so often. How do you know that nature isnt on some recurrent weather pattern? Like El Nino or El Nina. Thats not irrelevant.

Over the 100-plus million year haul, it may well repeat. But that's not relevant to the human timeframe.

Our basic global climate became set when the Isthmus of Panama joined with South America, cutting off the Pacific from the Caribbean.

Here, let's try it another way.

What's the single most important factor in the climate of the British Isles?

Why does it work the way it does?

Would it continue to work that way if North America was significantly different in shape?

Why then, would we give a rat's butt about data from when North America was significantly different in shape?

On a side note, 2 1/2 million years ago, the bore tides near Panama must've been an awesome sight!

Panama: Isthmus that Changed the World : Image of the Day

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by lapaz

See page 24 of 31 of the following link for recent survey information on the 97% of climatologists that believe humans are contributing to climate change:

http://www.post-carbon-living.com/TT..._Consensus.pdf

You cite a self selecting poll, aka unscientific, where only 3000 of 10000 even responded and of those 3000 that responded they singled out 79 respondents that claimed to be climate scientist, and then you imply that I take a position and then I try to find supporting evidence. I can cite polls of heartland institute conferences that have more participation and includes more self described climate scientist that disagree with the conclusion. I have a feeling you would dismiss the poll as biased yet you expect others to accept equally questionable sources as factual. Really?

Ps the most recent "evidence" you cited was from 2008. Since then a few things have happened; One, the temperatures have not continued to rise like all the computer models that the climate alarmist proclaimed as empirical proof projected. Two, the hockey stick graph was generated by Michael Mann who drew a graph that supported his position then purposely left out data that did not support his conclusion. Plus many more.

Here is an article that concerns another climate alarmist who is welling to commit fraud and misrepresent himself to promote the cause.
Why the Climate Skeptics Are Winning | The Weekly Standard

[UncleDoug]

Originally Posted by Yoweigh

Someone hacked into a CRU backup email server and stole a bunch of data.

After the scientist refused to comply with British versions of freedom of information. Plus the documents and emails have been verified as authentic. Contrast that with the Heartland document that was time stamped in California (Heartland is based in Chicago) after the documents that are suppose to support its authenticity were fraudulently obtained.

[drob8785]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

I call this "Half of the EE right now"

or

"The Brute Force Method of Disputing Science"

[Yoweigh]

Originally Posted by UncleDoug

After the scientist refused to comply with British versions of freedom of information.

This justifies the data theft somehow?