Zucas said: sguy78 said: But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it. Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here.

There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/europe/Busy-IPCC-ignored-erroneous-Himalayan-glaciers-report/Article1-503539.aspx

Here is a link about the Himalayan Mountain Glaciers.

TheRealMafoo said: Zucas said: TheRealMafoo said: hahaha, sorry my friend. We could all at once, set off every weapon we have ever made, and burn everything we have ever produced, and worst we would do is kill all of us and maybe 40% of all living things. 20 million years from now, nothing we do will matter. Life will be on earth, and the earth will be just fine. We are not remotely destroying the planet. Oh that's smart.  So now instead of just suicide, it's conscious or assisted suicide.  That's lovely.  It's good know we as a human race think so little of ourselves which is actually a mask for how arrogant we are.  The point of my response was to demonstrate how melodramatic he was being. I was hoping it would move him to a place where we could debate a little more rationally, and not talk about what we are doing as some sort of hollywood picture where the world blows up. We should take care of the world better then we are, for many many reasons. Temperature is not one of them.

And I totally agree that we should treat the world better to ensure that we have a planet that is livable.  And when we get complete confirmation that global warming isn't an issue, then we can scratch off the list.  Let's not make any truth claims we aren't sure of fully. 

Kasz216 said: Zucas said: sguy78 said: But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it. Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here. There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy.

Well even if that, doesn't mean we just let the issue seem solved.  We do the research until we know the answer.  When we know the answer we act upon it.  Maybe the guy was a complete nutcase and complete liar but at least let's prove he is before we drain the tub. 

Zucas said: Kasz216 said: Zucas said: sguy78 said: But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it. Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here. There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy. Well even if that, doesn't mean we just let the issue seem solved.  We do the research until we know the answer.  When we know the answer we act upon it.  Maybe the guy was a complete nutcase and complete liar but at least let's prove he is before we drain the tub.

No, but it does mean you treat global warming as if it isn't true. If you can't prove your theory you have to rely on the "null hypothesis." The fact that he admits he can't prove his theory means that scientifically it has to be treated as false until proven otherwise. Occrum's razor and all that. You still do global warming research.... however you approach that research differently. Treating global warming as an unproven hypothesis. Basically you "flip the script" in how research has been conducted.

Kasz216 said: Zucas said: Kasz216 said: Zucas said: sguy78 said: But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it. Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here. There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy. Well even if that, doesn't mean we just let the issue seem solved.  We do the research until we know the answer.  When we know the answer we act upon it.  Maybe the guy was a complete nutcase and complete liar but at least let's prove he is before we drain the tub.  No, but it does mean you treat global warming as if it isn't true. If you can't prove your theory you have to rely on the "null hypothesis." The fact that he admits he can't prove his theory means that scientifically it has to be treated as false until proven otherwise. Occrum's razor and all that. You still do global warming research.... however you approach that research differently. Treating global warming as an unproven hypothesis. Basically you "flip the script" in how research has been conducted.

Well I doubt he was the only one that says they could "prove global warming exists".  Hell I had a planetary astronomer as an astronomy teacher who said he could prove it as well... did a pretty damn good job of it as well haha.  The only thing I'm trying to say, is don't make any preemptive assumptions.  Even if the founder of something turns out to be a fraud, it doesn't mean the idea is wrong.  Sure, as you stated it does damn the proposal to hell, but doesn't fully destroy it as you stated.  And I do know about Ockham's Razor, but all research in science is always about proving and continuously proving hypotheses in hopes for better confidence or reworking the hypotheses.  So as I've been saying, let's let the people who know how to do their job, do their job and go from there.  Not to mention, we still need larger confirmation on this story that completely damns all the old evidence. 

But I know I'm not reputable enough to go out and damn or confirm any of this which is why I'll keep this neutral state.

Otherwise for example, i can claim i have scientific proof cheetos cause cancer... then it later turns out i don't have evidence for this.


we don't suddenly treat cheetos causing cancer as the "main" position... that would be stupid.

Zucas said: Kasz216 said: Zucas said: Kasz216 said: Zucas said: sguy78 said: But this isn't the only thing that is bringing this house of cards down. The e-mails that were leaked of these scientists showed they were destroying evidence before other people could get a hold of it. Well let's not sink the whole boat before we know we hit something.  A composition fallacy is where you assert what is true of one part is true of the whole.  Meaning, jsut becuase a little part like this may have come out, we can't assume the whole is false.  It's a fallacy that a lot of people like to use to disprove god as they find something that disproves a part of stated existence of god and then use it to assert it as the whole disproval.  Yes this is damning of the theory but it doesn't disprove the whole theory.  As I said, let's wait for more data to be compiled or data that supercedes other data before we start making truth claims.  Or basically, let's not make the same mistake Mr. Phil Jones made here. There is a real issue here though... since Phil Jones work is more or less the entire foundation of global warming research. His hockey stick method is basically the very fundamentals of global warming. If this actually is true... it pretty much does bring down the whole science and reset it to it's infancy. Well even if that, doesn't mean we just let the issue seem solved.  We do the research until we know the answer.  When we know the answer we act upon it.  Maybe the guy was a complete nutcase and complete liar but at least let's prove he is before we drain the tub.  No, but it does mean you treat global warming as if it isn't true. If you can't prove your theory you have to rely on the "null hypothesis." The fact that he admits he can't prove his theory means that scientifically it has to be treated as false until proven otherwise. Occrum's razor and all that. You still do global warming research.... however you approach that research differently. Treating global warming as an unproven hypothesis. Basically you "flip the script" in how research has been conducted. Well I doubt he was the only one that says they could "prove global warming exists".  Hell I had a planetary astronomer as an astronomy teacher who said he could prove it as well... did a pretty damn good job of it as well haha.  The only thing I'm trying to say, is don't make any preemptive assumptions.  Even if the founder of something turns out to be a fraud, it doesn't mean the idea is wrong.  Sure, as you stated it does damn the proposal to hell, but doesn't fully destroy it as you stated.  And I do know about Ockham's Razor, but all research in science is always about proving and continuously proving hypotheses in hopes for better confidence or reworking the hypotheses.  So as I've been saying, let's let the people who know how to do their job, do their job and go from there.  Not to mention, we still need larger confirmation on this story that completely damns all the old evidence.  But I know I'm not reputable enough to go out and damn or confirm any of this which is why I'll keep this neutral state.

He wasn't the only one saying he could prove it exists. However he is the person everyone who said they could prove it exists got their data from. Data which has been proven lately to be altered and cherry picked... with none of the originals apparently existing anymore... and which he's admitted was actually just wrong statistically anyway. Like the legal term... fruit from the poisonous tree. It's tons of people proving things with his data and his models which have recently been disproven.

Zucas said: TheRealMafoo said: Zucas said: TheRealMafoo said: hahaha, sorry my friend. We could all at once, set off every weapon we have ever made, and burn everything we have ever produced, and worst we would do is kill all of us and maybe 40% of all living things. 20 million years from now, nothing we do will matter. Life will be on earth, and the earth will be just fine. We are not remotely destroying the planet. Oh that's smart.  So now instead of just suicide, it's conscious or assisted suicide.  That's lovely.  It's good know we as a human race think so little of ourselves which is actually a mask for how arrogant we are.  The point of my response was to demonstrate how melodramatic he was being. I was hoping it would move him to a place where we could debate a little more rationally, and not talk about what we are doing as some sort of hollywood picture where the world blows up. We should take care of the world better then we are, for many many reasons. Temperature is not one of them. And I totally agree that we should treat the world better to ensure that we have a planet that is livable.  And when we get complete confirmation that global warming isn't an issue, then we can scratch off the list.  Let's not make any truth claims we aren't sure of fully.

That's my postion.

What i take issue with, is governments spending tens of billions of dollars, and causing hundreds of millions of people to change the way they conduct there lives in the name of Climate Change.

I have no problem spending a few million here and there to find an answer. But find that answer before you try and change the world.

In otherwords... the old proofs don't exist anymore.

New proofs need to be discovered if it's true.