Comments on: Climategate: They Threw Away The Raw Data? Where Is The American Media? And Why Are Liberals Silent?–UPDATED

By: Angela

Angela — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:39:24 +0000

The reason liberals aren’t talking about it is because “climate change” was their free ticket to imposing worldwide communism.

Liberalism is a humanistic religion. Liberalism feels all the natural religious inclinations people have: care for the environment, care for the poor, justice, equality, etc., but then divorces them from God. When that happens, man becomes the only arbiter of these goods, and the liberal must resort to imposing these things by force. The desire is good, but the means are horrendous.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:41:10 +0000

And you’ll keep believing everything they tell you so you can keep sucking off the teet of MY hard earned paycheck. You’d better learn to work for yourself, because that will end soon.

By: FatSean

FatSean — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:27:04 +0000

DaveR, Your complaints about the data and emails revealed (are they tampered with?) show your specious arguments quite nicely. I’m glad you will deny till you die rather than change the way you live. That takes balls.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:43:22 +0000

FatSean – REAL Science has nothing to do with Statistics. In fact, it’s about as opposite as you can get.

By: FatSean

FatSean — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:35:14 +0000

Wow, you guys are reaching for just about anything. Shoulda paid more attention in statistics class, then you wouldn’t be making such fools of yourselves.

Glad I bought a house in the hills

By: DaveR

DaveR — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:44:00 +0000

Now they are going to release the full data? But I thought they “lost” it??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

What I find most hilarious is this quote in the story.

“Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

Considering NASA et al USED the RESULTS of study that this group released as a base for their OWN reports. So of COURSE they “tally”. Such lies.

By: oldwolves

oldwolves — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:14:31 +0000

I can’t get Jon Lovitz out of my head…
“Uh… the boxes with the data…yeah well I was going to show you but the boxes were missed placed, then Uh, I found them being held by the Uh, Nazi’s! Yeah that’s the ticket, the same Nazi’s that were hunting Indiana Jones, Yeah but I swung on a rope and grabbed it out of their hands , when the next thing you know Uh, Rush Limba and Ann Coutler trapped me in an electrical cage , demanding the boxes, Yeah, but I took out my whip and…..”
You get the idea. Just Imagine all these global warming scientist speaking like that. Thats the respect they deserve.

By: BobV

BobV — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:15:48 +0000

So without the raw data their results cannot be independently verified for accuracy. Which means peer-review is impossible, which in turn means that they can no longer claim to follow the scientific method as peer review and repeatability are non-negotiable aspects of actual science.

So in other words what they have is a belief system that we are to take as a matter of faith. Which is difficult considering how much they stand to gain by getting a specific answer, and how incompetent they’ve shown themselves in the past.

By: DaveR

DaveR — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:15:33 +0000

It’d be more believable if they said they just MADE up the data. The paperwork excuse is even lamer.

Fire? Sure – IF there was a fire.
Water damage from a storm? Eh – that would actually be on record too.

But thrown away when they MOVED?? I’m waiting for the “research dog ate it” defense next.

By: Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Dr. Melissa Clouthier — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:11:33 +0000

Well, Dave, you’re right about the majority of the data. But the data they’re saying they lost is the original, pencil-to-paper readings from weather stations. Those got packed in boxes and destroyed when they changed buildings.

That’s what they’re saying…..