A review would be a very good thing. On one hand it could unearth that these scientists have been falsifying results (which I don't believe to be the case), and on the other it could prove the data is sound and restore credibility to the theory of global warming.

I agree with Elfer that the dodgy stuff will not be the research, but about the deleting of emails and files and the like.

At 11/24/09 05:43 PM, Slat wrote:

At 11/24/09 05:27 PM, Worthless-Wisdom wrote:

It's actually related, this stuff URC working on is a EU funded project.. Actually that's why everyone's making a such fuzz about it.

But surely the question is whether these emails prove the work of these scientists is unreliable. No doubt a shadow of doubt has been cast but logical and reasonable justifications are being made to clear it.

What exactly are you implying by that actually? That the scientists have a motive to modify results?

At 11/24/09 11:32 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Oh, and by the way, all these models are able to conclude is that carbon is up and that temperature is up.

Temperature is up? Oh so you agree that global warming exists? Are you arguing that global warming is a myth or that global warming due to increased greenhouse gases is a myth?

They are not able to understand that it's temperature that causes CO2, not CO2 that causes temperature. They also do not take into account the massive changes in the Sun's activity.

I'm genuinely interested in reading up more on that first claim that temperature causes CO2 so please could you link me to a website that explains that because I have not really heard much about this.

Most of these scientists have a deep disdain for humanity,

Ill agree that someone with a credible reputation has the power to influence, but what you're missing is that to build that credible reputation they went through the motions of actually being credible. Its not like they created story tales to get such a reputation, or now that they have that reputation they planning on corrupting their power.

And your baseless and frankly offensive claim that scientists bear this huge grudge against the masses is just plain stupid.

By converting to a green economy....

Speculation

At 11/24/09 03:07 PM, Mr-Money wrote: What do you mean they have nothing to do with it???? The whole point of the University is to convince people to believe in global warming, and therefore, the solution would be a carbon tax.

The whole point of the University is definitely NOT to convince people to believe in global warming. You seem to have a narrow minded view of a University there. Assuming you meant just the CRU part of the university, Im sure you'd find the point of the CRU is to research into climate history and the current climate to get a better scientific understanding of the world's climate. They then see trends in history and the data and comment on it.

You make it sound like they picked up this theory and are now trying to prove it, without realising the theory came about due to the evidence they had.

At 11/24/09 04:39 PM, Slat wrote: Funny how people trust their goverments so much.

You seem to have a common theme in your comments that the man is out to rinse you. While that may be true or untrue it is not related to the discussion at hand which is questioning the credibility of these scientists work. You seem to be clutching at straws now.

I chuckled. I felt you started off a bit slow, not much happening in the first 2 minutes, but I guess you've got to build the scenario up.

I think as a comedian a very important thing is to not act the slightest bit self conscious on stage which I think you done really well except for a couple moments where you seemed a bit unsure how to stand/sit

Highlights for me: "you guys know this. You did this!" and the "where'd all the glitter go/come from"

At 11/23/09 10:08 PM, Slat wrote: If you stop listening to lies from mainstream science and start looking into independent researcher's works, you would see that not just the earth but the whole solar system is getting warmer. Do they have factories in Neptune? Mars? Even Pluto is getting warmer ffs..

I think you're getting mixed up between global warming and anthropogenic global warming. I think its hard to doubt that global warming has been occurring, whether it is due to human activity is another debate all together.

At 11/23/09 05:02 PM, michelinman wrote: This one time. At band camp...

This was also my first thought. This t-shirt.

I'm going through some of the email excerpts from this site and as a general thought I think a lot of it is taken out of context, and some of the lines just seem like the scientists are joking with each other. That said some of the emails are a bit more alarming.

1st email - youve all already mentioned. the fact that he wants to spread the code amongst trusted colleagues first, like poxpower, i think is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable thing to do. Its not like he's going to hide it from critics forever and leave them guessing as to how he got his results. Hes obviously going to have to empty his pockets at some point and show how he got there, as he himself says he is expecting loads of criticism in the future. He just cleaned up the code so he gets less shit criticisms

The 2nd email down in the link seems to be trying to take one line out of context from the rest of the lines in the actual e-mail.

"The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference - the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don't remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?"

The argument in that link is that they are modifying data, which from reading it I disagree with completely. They state the author interpreted the 'temperature proxy' one way, and they may have interpreted another way. That certainly doesn't sound like modifying data to me but them choosing a different way of understanding it.

The 3rd one the excerpt only highlights a couple sentences that are apparently an acknowledgement of urban effect (even though the preceding line makes it sound like they have a different explanation "we probably need to say more on this"). It sounds like a lot has been cut out from the email before this excerpt to support the author's point.

The 4th one - you guys are having a field day already. This seems to be the biggest issue not just fo this thread but across the board. I think there have been reasonable explanations made which answer this issue by people who actually have a clue

The 5th email is quite worrying but the idea that their observing equipment is inadequate could potentially play against both sides of the global warming argument, especially if they anti GW are using the argument the data from 'mikes nature trick' shows cooling.

The 6th one, from reading the email the highlighted line "As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations." sounds to me like a throwaway sarcastic comment. It seems the robustness of something has come into question and they've already emphasised the point and already answered these issues from nay sayers and are getting annoyed. For that comment to be genuine makes no sense, to me anyway.

The 7th one has my favourite argument. The first highlighted line "Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!" does sound worrying but we don't really have a way of knowing what they're talking about. But "Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act ! " is obviously a joke but is being used as serious and as proof of withholding data.

The 8th email shows that they do have the ability to censor on the site, but is not proof that it is happening. It sounds like a logical thing to do to screen posts before posting them so that valid points don't get lost in a sea of piss. A person from the website has addressed this issue in a reply to a comment.

The 9th one I don't understand how it shows there is data being withheld.

The 10th one certainly is suspicious. but we don't really know what is being deleted because the excerpt doesn't include the whole email which would certainly give us a better idea.

To me the 11th email sounds the worst. It does actually look like the guy wants to change some data to suit an explanation. Granted he hasn't done it and is in the process of talking it through with the receiver, but to me that sounds sketchy cos the explanation should suit the data not the other way round.

The 12th email is another example of emphasising a line even when there is a perfectly reasonable solution in the same bloody email. The claim of withholding data is false as it says in the very sentence after the highlighted one. He's just making this mcintyre guy work to try and disprove him. And even if you still think the claim of withholding data is true, at least think about the reason behind it. Its not to hide anything, its to piss off mcintyre, as he is seemingly doing through constant hounding.

The 13th emails sounds all above board.

14th - date changing sounds dodgy and should be followed up.

15th - The 'withholding of data' claim is either false or out of their control. 1st point has no issues. 2nd point sounds like an issue similar to data protection or something. They've obviously had to pay for data for from some sources and possibly cannot send it on as it would be in breach of contract. 3rd point - Sounds like a solution to number 2, and sounds like the correct data would be getting sent in whole (just apparently it would annoy them).

16th - does sound like a genuine not telling the whole truth scenario.

All in all there are some questionable instances, and although I still side on the fact these are out of context and these people certainly haven't just made global warming up. Im going to keep an open eye for further developments

At 11/15/09 05:37 PM, Drakim wrote: So, in comparison with your electricity example, there are actually possible consequences depending on what is true, while electricity doesn't care if we understand it or not.

Yeah fair enough the implications of God thinking what he is doing is right considering the power he has is far more significant.

Occasionaly I get these kinds of moments, but it doesn't have to be a beautiful view. A realisation could just hit me that life is A-OK and I feel all warm and fuzzy inside, even if just for a tiny period of time.

My first thought was a simple, god is stated as being all knowing, therefore he would know. He supposedly created this universe and everything in it. Before him there was nothing. Now there is the universe. He is the highest power. In that sense you can say he definitely is the highest power in this universe until proven otherwise.

The idea that god could be a puppet himself/herself/itself is quite intriguing. Because in our universe god also lives in a world of cause and effect. Things weren't just there, he had to create them for them to be. He created them, they were there. Cause and effect. If he lives in a universe of cause and effect he himself should start to wonder what created him for him to be?

But considering he is meant to be all knowing, he must have some insight that not everything is cause and effect and some things can just be, then he would for all intents and purposes know he is the highest power.

Before you counter with your argument that if he is not the highest power and he can be duped into thinking he knows he is I will say this. Surely then everything we 'know', we don't. Everything we think is certain actually isn't because there is the chance we are being duped into it. Even though we've had absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, the fact that that small chance exists that what we know is wrong, we should accept we don't know,

For example electricity. We learn how it works in school, all the top scientists accept that its all about switching electrons or whatever. The theory is sound. People have seen it to be true in experiments involving different materials, different voltages, different distances, blah blah blah etc. You or I could research into how electricity works, and afterwards we would know how it works. In our world as far as we are concerned, as far as we care, as far as we need, we know how it works.

But if theres the chance we're being led to believe thats how it works(even if there is absolutely nothing to suggest were being mislead), and actually something else is happening, then we cant say we know how it works and we should really consider it a theory. You could then say this for everything, and really, we don't know anything. If you get what I mean.

At 11/15/09 09:43 AM, Drakim wrote: Hey guys, I just want to tune in and say that:

1. All the people who are, as usual, posting off topic stuff
2. All the people who answers "God knows everything he would know"

...are complete idiots. Thank you for your time, now please remove yer arse from the topic so we adults can talk about this instead.

Falling into one of these categories, FUCK YOU DOLFEEN!

Brick.

An awesomely slick film

You sure you weren't just dreaming? Because you done some pretty mundane stuff considering

Its all fun and games until somebody loses a life.

Ive made countless jokes at her expense but I must admit death just isnt that funny when its personalised. I hope she does rest in peace.

Its a great website.

I found it a couple days ago through an article saying how the site is getting a book deal.

I thought we could discuss the music from the ever edgy Skins show we have over here in the UK.

In particular the last episode (they went to a ball). Right so 7 minutes 56 secs into the show the two lesbians are lying in bed discussing their vaginas. What I want to know is if any of you guys know the name or artist of the song in the background. If you need a reminder: http://www.channel4.com/video/skins/catc hup.html. Any help would be appreciated.

Also to make this into a real topic I say skins is always on the ball with music. I remember them playing MGMT before any of us had heard of them and look how big they turned out to be.

At 12/3/08 06:11 PM, DiscoveryOne wrote: wow, you assume far too much.
its all about Bulmers, mate

And Ill take some St. Heliers with that.

At 5/3/08 09:11 PM, HeartbreakHoldout wrote: I noticed that. To be fair, he is too much of a dramatist to not be gay.

I have his book, but I only got halfway through reading it. Everytime I see his shows I get an urge to finish it...

Ah man I never realised he had a book. Does it give you a good idea of how he does what he does and shit? Is it a boring read?

And yeh Ive always thought of him as asexual. I admire the guy but Ive always thought hes probably a bit messed in the head to be with other people or the fact that with his ability to manipulate people he could be knee deep in pussy/cock yet you never hear about it. But hes happily coupled so go him!

Booya!

Who else loves this guy's shows? He is unreal and what he can do with his knowledge is incredible. He just started a new "Trick or Treat" series last night and Im watching it now on 4oD. Who else has seen it. How the fuck does he do it!?

I bet hes the 'woman' in his relationship because hes for sure the one who does all the manipulating. He'll mind trick anyone into going shoe shopping and paying for dinner. And who else laughed when during the coffee bean trick Derren tunes:

"Just keep half an eye on your bean so you know Im not going to flick the bean off, or anything like that, that would be a first"?

ratemypoo.com

Yeh man, sex is what drives people.

The many types of Grafitti.

News Headlines: Updates on the St Martins High School drug ring.

The precedings continue at Holloway court as the prosecution gives evidence in the trial of S.U. Erman, supposed leader of the drug ring that operated in High Schools to reach teenagers. The prosecution had this to say:

"I give you Article A, which clearly shows the aforementioned suspect has just snorted a line of coke, while one of his fellow operators is currently doing the same in the background"

I don't think shes overly talented like she was bigged up to be but think her voice is just very distinctive. Ive not been that big a fan of Amy Winehouse listening to songs like back to black, and the rehab one but I discovered this amazing song recently and its shed a diffferent light on amy for me. Brilliant song.

At 1/27/08 05:26 PM, Phantox wrote: Stop advertising your shit

^^^^^

Your mom jokes will never go out of fashion dude.

At 1/23/08 07:50 PM, OrangeBase wrote: Will I ever know? I know the song isn't a big deal, and it's repetative but for some reason it sounds like something from a better time in my life.

Its repetitive because its just a loop of a 13 second long tune.

GET OUT OF MY MIND YOU DEMON FUCK!

WHat the fuck? She'd think Im THAT bad in bed?!

I find pissing on the toilet seat to be the most stealthy. It also gives some nice sprayback on my legs. If its late at night and Im still trancelike I sometimes dream like Im at the beach.

I dont see why you should care.

Unless you were very intimate with him during those morning bus stop talks, there probably wasn't a strong bond between you two. How much feeling can you squeeze into those 5 minute waits?

Also, with the whole oversensitive thing, Im guessing you felt for those animals because you were there and you were involved. Those events actually affected your life. Im sure if you had seen the guy crash or were closer to him you wouldn't be so apathetic.