Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

[Robert Graham <robert_david_graham () yahoo com>]

> No, I'm simply exasperated at (1) the gross stupidity of
> supposedly-intelligent people, and at (2) the unbelievable
> arrogance of
> the unintelligent and/or uneducated who have absolutely no
> clue, yet
> have the audacity to pretend otherwise.

Irony. Lulz.

> Can you -- generic you -- right here, right now, without
> any help,
> state the three laws of thermodynamics, give an example of
> a perturbation
> function, explain the carbon dioxide phase diagram, and
> solve a partial
> differential equation?   If not, then you
> really should not be trying
> to express an opinion on global warming.

I understand all your buzzwords. You are choosing random jargon to intimidate people. I'm not impressed.

If Al Gore is getting Oscars and Nobel Prizes, then the only qualification you need to join the debate is to understand 
science at least as well as Al Gore. That's pretty much everybody.

I would suggest that understanding the "scientific method" is important. That, for me, is what made me a skeptic (and 
what encouraged me to learn climatology). The IPCC has gaping holes in their scientific method. The worst is the way 
computer models have replaced empirical data. The second worst is the way that historical reconstructions (aka. the 
Hockey Sticks) are not reproducible, not statistically robust, and which contain "tricks to hide the decline". The 
IPCC, and scientists like Mann and Jones, do things openly and publicly that no other scientific discipline would 
tolerate. The Climategate e-mails don't really show anything new, but have focused people's attention on these errors. 
I'll bet money that the next IPCC assessment report will not contain a graph that "hides the decline" like the current 
one does.

I'll give you a chance to make me look like a fool. I'm scratching my head about your "CO2 phase change diagram" 
buzzword. The partial pressure of CO2 never gets high enough to deposit out of the atmosphere, and I don't think there 
are lakes of CO2 under the ocean (where in theory, pressure is high enough to make CO2 a solid/liquid). I'm at a loss 
to explain why this has relevance to the IPCC conclusion that mankind is responsible for global warming. Please 
enlighten me, and show everyone how little I know of climate science.



      

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.