ClimateGate - Climate Center's Server Hacked Revealing Domeepents

+1 by wotak , Now we will finally learn the chaotic truth, right?

self lol

Hey! It's a big deal for bible thumpin', cartoonishly - ultra - conservative, uber -meepin' - propaganda - guzzlin', science and history challenged, money IS God retarded, dystopian Republicans, so it's true. To anyone else, it's exactly what it seems: getting the word out, in the most publicity friendly manner: Hey kids! we're meeped if cattle don't stop farting, and street racers don't knock it off.

nearly any time someone disagrees with mainstream science, it is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of said science.

Science is a democracy built around facts and theory. The majority rules and calls all the shots, but that doesn't mean the minority won't one day be in charge. But just by being in the minority doesn't mean your work is worthwhile, it just means that you have a theory that is counter to the prevailing, accepted theories. In the case of climate change science, it appears that the majority has a pretty big lead over the few dissenting voices in the minority.

And once again, just because you are in the minority doesn't provide you any credibility, whcih fundies seem to think is the case. And that my friend, is where they are not only misinformed of said science, they are also completely wrong.

And one more thing, just because there is apparent dissenting opinion among otherwise cooperative/agreeing scientists doesn't mean meep. To a fundie's head, any conflict and grey area means Red Flashing Lights and Something Is Wrong, but in science it means systems all normal. See, when you don't have a meeping clue about what you are criticizing, things may appear quite simple, but usually they are just the opposite. In science, there are hundreds or thousands of dissenting opinions on a range of so many points, because it is meeping complex. Every scientist may agree with a large portion of a said theory, but may have a divergent opinion about some esoterics of a theory.

And this duality (not One God, Oh meep!) scares the meep out of non-scientists, because the very existence of ?s only leads to more ?s, and further away from The Word Of God, to Which We Do Not Have to Think About, But Just to Obey! Since Fundies don't really think all that much, science is a freakin scary concept.

That is why, as a scientist, I'm creating a perpetual motion machine that primes itself on the fresh corpses of Fundies and most Catholics.

Science is a democracy built around facts and theory.

BULLmeep. The scientific community does not vote for the most popular theory. They attempt to destroy/prove each theory and post the results of said attempts regardless of the outcome or the opinions involved. Just the facts, Jack.

This is what makes science worth giving a meep about.

Unlike the rest of the words in your long-double poast.

Conservatives seem to be meep bent on letting the planet burn (bad pun intended). Do you think they are doing it for financial reasons (trying to make the most profit at the expense of our planet) or do you think they are doing it for religious reasons (End of days, revelations and all that bull).

Or both?

Real science is more a continual campaign by anarchic realists, whose agenda is continually trying to upset the applecart , to strive for actual, ever-changing truths, seeking THE TRUTH, more so than having any distinct, or even fuzzy, political affiliation. Bought scientists know what they're told to know, in tandem with media, Republicans and Democrats, religious flakes.

Both, Rat, 'cept it's three, the new Holy Trinity(but not actually new): The Money, The Power, and The Holy Most.

american history for lil ratty

http://www.youtube.com/v/2IlHgbOWj4o&hl=en_US&fs=1&

Glad I deleated my pron before the attack.

I don't know a single scientist who is paid to have a certain opinion, as far as I know, and all of them, excepting one, has the following opinion about global warming:

1) The earth is currently warming.

2) The earth has warmed and cooled in a cycle for most of its lifetime, and it is easily within the realm of possibility that the current warming is part of that cycle, regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter.

3) CO2 may, or may not, significantly contribute to global warming. Neither has been, and probably will not soon be, rigorously shown.

4) Pollution is bad. We should minimize our impact on the ecosystem.

Take from it what you will.

P.S. The one excepting scientist has two Phd's, one in physics and one in engineering, and asserts that it is a scientific fact that the earth will be uninhabitable by 2015 if we do not reverse course NOW. He also lives 20 miles from school and drives there every day, despite the copious availability of housing within a quarter mile of campus. Well, if you get enough of them together in a room, you'll always be able to find one...

3) CO2 may, or may not, significantly contribute to global warming. Neither has been, and probably will not soon be, rigorously shown.

how about water vapor...

The potential of condensation trails (contrails) from jet aircraft to affect regional-scale surface temperatures has been debated for years, but was difficult to verify until an opportunity arose as a result of the three-day grounding of all commercial aircraft in the United States in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

Sure, maybe. Also, maybe it's aliens on mercury terraforming Earth under our noses.

Hmmm, wotak, I guess my 23 years of scientific training must have gotten me all mixed up. You of course, must know just because you are wotak and unless you have an education in science, not sure if your opinion really merits debate, at least with me.

^ ''Science is a democracy built around facts and theory.''

Still bullmeep. Science is in no way, shape or form a democracy.

If you had said: ''Science is a field of study built around facts and theory.''

You would have been leaning in the right direction. As it stands, your statement is incorrect. Science is not a democracy. Science wouldn't meeping work if it were a democracy.

Let us examine why this is a factual statement. To start we'll need to understand words. Words are little things made up of letters arranged in a particular order. There are lot's of different types of words but we're simply going to focus on one kind: Nouns.

Nouns are words that can be described as people, places or things. In this case, we're talking about two such nouns; science and democracy. Each of these nouns are the names of things. Here, let me help you better understand by defining these two particular words-

Democracy:

• The political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives.
• A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
• Majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group.

-VS-

Science:

• A method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

As you can plainly see, one of these nouns is not like the other. In fact, they are absolutely different. So different in fact that one can easily see that they can not properly be used in place of one another unless one wishes to make an incorrect statement.

''But why is this?'', you might say...

Well, allow me to introduce you to a simple phrase:

Scientific Law:

• A statement of a scientific fact or phenomenon that is invariable under given conditions. A law may be either quantitative (including measurement) or qualitative (general characteristics). It must describe evidence that has been gathered using acceptable scientific standards of reproducibility.

So, in conclusion, you can clearly see why the sentence: ''Science is a democracy built around facts and theory.'' --BDW Nov. 2009 is an incorrect statement and a nonsensical sentence. It is neither fact nor is it demonstrable, therefor it can, and should, be classified as BULLmeep.

Now, if you haven't learned this in ''23 years of scientific training'' then you are a meeping retard.

Personally, I don't think you're retarded. I just think that the word democracy doesn't mean what you thought it did when you made that BULLmeep statement.

Now, consider yourself informed and carry on, my meeper brother.

bravo !!!!!!!!

I think he meant 'Science consensus is a democracy built around facts and theory.'

The scientific community does not vote for the most popular theory.

I can't say that science is a democracy in the sense that we can't vote on what is true and what is false. That would be like putting to the vote what meep my dog is. But what can be voted on, is if there there is a conflict of interests in knowing my dogs meep and if my research should be backed or funded by the scientific community. Scientists don't usually get far when they aren't backed by their peers or someone looking to make a pretty penny.

Big tobacco hiding evidence and research that smoking is related to lung cancer. The science was there, the truth was undeniable, smoking = lung cancer. But hiding the research was kinda like saying, and I think this is what they said, there are no studies linking smoking to lung cancer. Was science voted upon?

They (not the scientists of the scientific community, but the fundies in the scientific community) vote on what theories get funding and what theories don't. So to some extent, it is a democracy driven by capitalism. (Read up on Tesla, and you'll see what I mean)..

If Tesla's ideas had been allowed to flourish this debate wouldn't be happening, and Cheney'd be an angry old janitor in some obscure elementary school. Scientific discovery is allowed to flourish at the whim of competing corporate interests.

yea and we'd meep gold and meep diamonds

more so wotak, while you're going all dictionary disciple and meep look up connotation

Holy meep ball of semantics. meeproach is correct and Wotak is just a meep who likes to play the semantics dance.

And, if I were younger, I would care, because I used to be a semantics meep like Sir Wotak. So the younger me says right on! The older me says suck the poo from my sphincter, although you are correct.

I misused the word democracy, because I believe scientists are a group of individuals which means there is politics involved, but in this case opinions are replaced by facts and theories. In a democracy, ideas/theories are posited and challenged, and there is a continual ebb and flow. The same goes for science.

Anyway, leave me alone, I have some carrot jerking to attend to.

Holy meep ball of semantics. meeproach is correct and Wotak is just a meep who likes to play the semantics dance.

Semantics doesn't cover it, dummy. Not on this one. If you had said, ''The sky is like the ground built around facts and theory'', you'd be just as wrong. You're using two nouns that are absolutely not alike and saying they are like each other. That's not semantics, it's just wrong.

The reason it's so meeping wrong is because that extremely stupid sentence, ''Science is a democracy built around facts and theory.'', is a pretty damned good way of describing Intelligent Design; if you consider Palin's Wal*Mart Christians ''the democracy'', that is.

Now, if science was a democracy (which it's not because that's a meeping dumb thought), it would mean that the most popular version of the whatever would be considered factual. ie, the earth would still be considered flat... and on and on. But, because science is absolutely nothing at all like a democracy, this isn't the case and science, unlike mob rule, actually works. The computer you are reading this on is proof of this fact that you can touch with your own old, wrinkly fingers if you need reassurance.

Now, this is a good thing for humanity because I'd hate to think doctors could have just attempted to vote a polio or smallpox vaccine (among other vaccines) into existence because, well meep, there wouldn't be anyone left alive to vote after 100's of years of unscientific voting, rather than applying science to these issues to find the cures... and that's just one tiny example of how meeping retarded science would be if it were ''a democracy built around facts and theory.''

And, if I were younger, I would care, because I used to be a semantics meep like Sir Wotak. So the younger me says right on! The older me says suck the poo from my sphincter, although you are correct.

Ha ha, the old ''I'm wrong but I'm old so meep you'' defense. Hey, I'll take that as long as you admit you're wrong... and you do care because you came all the way back to this very thread to type stuff.

I misused the word democracy, because I believe scientists are a group of individuals which means there is politics involved, but in this case opinions are replaced by facts and theories. In a democracy, ideas/theories are posited and challenged, and there is a continual ebb and flow. The same goes for science.

Yeah I understood what you were trying to say, but (it's a big but) one is based upon fact and begs to be disproved in order to be made better and the other is based on what-meeping-ever the popular battle cry of the moment is, ie ''HEALTHCARE REFORM!'', ''DRILL BABY DRILL!'', ''CAP AND TRADE!'', ''YOUR PARTY IS SOCIALISTER THAN MINE!'', which is an example of how democracy is a pretty meeped up way to do things. You see, the vast majority of people are meeping stupid, knee-meep, bobble-headed parrots who can barely validate a political opinion with a hand full of semi-truths, much less, facts. It's a good meeping thing we don't allow them to vote for scientific advancements. I like having the smartest 2% in charge of getting the science meeping right. I think that's what makes it work for mankind rather than place them at odds with one another at every meeping turn while nothing is discovered, invented or fixed.

So, yeah. science isn't like democracy. I'm glad we cleared that up. Have fun with your carrot, grandpa and don't forget my Christmas card this year. :)

Here's a good example of people we should all be meeping ecstatic aren't a part of the scientific community.

It's also a good example of a democracy hard at work doing what it does.

http://www.youtube.com/v/mKKKgua7wQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999

has wotak jumped the shark yet?

He's workin' on it.

When you get knocked on your meep in the first round and knocked on your meep in the second round, it's kind of silly to keep pulling your meep up with the ropes.

Hide the decline!

Haven't read the tomes from wotak, but I'll keep getting up until I get knocked out. I still seem to be standing.

Dear wotak,

I am wrong in my semantic mis-step. I believe that meeproach properly captured the essence of my original statement. I consider a democracy the same as a majority. Perhaps that is too loose an interpretation of the word, so I replace democracy with concensus.

I consider this debate over. And my direct investment to caring is usually equated to my effort to respond. So, you could say that I care very little about this debate, as I'm not really trying.

As much as the other pole smokers enjoy a catfight, there really isn't one here.

Now for the last time, pass me the lube, cause I'm stroking to old Betty Page pinups.

*this space reserved for 20 more wotak paragraphs

How can you not love this place!

Did I miss something?

linkswarm.com: a democracy built around links and meepbaggery

www.smalldeadanimals.com this woman has been chronicling the Climategate scandal pretty thoroughly, it is a good place to keep up to date with unfolding meep. Click the climate gate links front and center to get up to speed.

MURRAY MEGAN MCARDLE ARDLE