Climategate needs a better name

[A.A. Alfie]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?
Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.

[technoextreme]

Controversy that only idiots will jump on because they have no idea how the world works. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it succinctly describes the situation.
PS:
Show me the posts!!!!!!!

[Dr Adequate]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?"Hurricane Teacup".

Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also. "Climatologists".

[bigred]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?
Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.

:confused: What the hell-? Is this some specific incident you're talking about or just in general?

Anyway I agree it's pretty asinine regardless.

[Ryokan]

Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.

[commandlinegamer]

Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.

Yeah, unfortunately I think Richard Nixon's legacy is going to be a newspaperman's cliche till the end of time.

[sugarb]

chicken little's revenge

[daredelvis]

Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.


Educated.


Daredelvis

[KoihimeNakamura]

Not calling them warmers. (To be fair, a better name than deniers would be useful for AGW.. deniers...)

[cornsail]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?

climatefence
climatefirewall
climatejerky
climatewhothe****cares
hack the (warming?) planet
the holocaust part 2

Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.

sheeple
enivro-wackjobs
disinfo agents
normal people
dumbheads
commie nazis
those pesky kids

[Howie Felterbush]

Call it what it is...

The religious versus the atheists.

Have y'all really read any of these threads? Two sides trying to prove the unprovable (save your tripe, please, you can't prove it either way, and more to the point, I don't care) to each other. Chart! Graph! Peer review!! Hacked e-mail!! This guy says... That guy says... This website says... Yeah, but this guy says...

And so on, ad nauseum. You're not going to change each other's minds. Give it a rest, for the children. :)

[Skeptic]

Controversy that only idiots will jump on because they have no idea how the world works. It doesn't roll off the tongue but it succinctly describes the situation.
PS:
Show me the posts!!!!!!!

Here (http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html), if that's what you meant.

[Region Rat]

Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.


Something you and I agree about, although I would change 'a bit' to 'very'.

[GreyICE]

Call it what it is...

The religious versus the atheists.

Have y'all really read any of these threads? Two sides trying to prove the unprovable (save your tripe, please, you can't prove it either way, and more to the point, I don't care) to each other. Chart! Graph! Peer review!! Hacked e-mail!! This guy says... That guy says... This website says... Yeah, but this guy says...

And so on, ad nauseum. You're not going to change each other's minds. Give it a rest, for the children. :)
We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.

[Howie Felterbush]

We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.


You obviously missed the bit where I said "save your tripe" and "I don't care".:D

People who post things in invisible text can shampoo my crotch.

You are assuming (in your invisible text) that one side has to be totally correct and the other must be totally wrong, which is also quite wrong.

[MattusMaximus]

We here at antigravity international would like to note that you remaining in your chair is entirely optional, and simply a matter of opinion. Those of us who believe we can float off our chairs and up to the moon are not 'irrational' 'crazy' or 'stupid' like you have implied. We merely represent a legitimate difference of opinion, and your assertion that there is some mysterious 'force' of 'gravity' that acts to hold you to your chair is patently ridiculous.

We would like to say that your claims of a 'gravity' have been on the whole very unconvincing, and we would note that all the evidence you have proposed for your so-called gravity can be explained by many other phenomena already observed in nature, that does not require the existence of an 'unobservable, invisible force' that you propose.

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.

LolZ :D

[tyr_13]

Or, in other words, science does not follow your absolutely, completely stupid idea that two sides are both equal and unprovable in a debate. There's wrong, absolutely wrong, and then there's what you wrote, which is opening whole new fields of wrong.

Isn't there a specific name for this logical fallacy? It's the opposite of the excluded middle. Damnit, I know there is some funny name for it.

It's kind of like, "Hammas wants to kill all the Jews. The Jews don't want to die. Therefore, we should let Hammas to kill half the Jews to be fair."

[Skeptic]

There's an old sating that a British is someone who says that if A thinks 2+2=4, and B thinks 2+2=17, the truth is surely somewhere in between.

[fishbob]

You are assuming (in your invisible text) that one side has to be totally correct and the other must be totally wrong, which is also quite wrong.

Excluding the possibility that one side is totally correct and the other side is totally wrong, is also quite wrong.

[Captain.Sassy]

Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.

Scandalous, even.

Gategate, anyone?

[GreyICE]

You obviously missed the bit where I said "save your tripe" and "I don't care".:D

You are assuming (in your invisible text) that one side has to be totally correct and the other must be totally wrong, which is also quite wrong.

Science does not have 'sides.' That's a pitiful invention of the television media, who enjoys the '2 talking heads' debate format. Hypothesis are subject to tests and known body of knowledge. When you have eliminated all hypothesis excepting one, you have an established theory. New hypothesis are tested against established theory, and if either the new hypothesis or the established theory fails to predict the results of the test, it is thrown out.

All hypothesis can fail to explain observed phenomena (see Quantum Mechanics). Then you have no workable general theories. Multiple hypothesis can explain observed phenomena with tests currently unable to be conducted due to technological limitations (too small, too fast, etc. (which some people believe QM falls into, but String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are their own little discussion). That's fine too - they generally get called 'theories' in the literature, but overall it's known that the correct one will eventually be established.

The 'anti-global warming' crowd has proposed hypotheses. It is caused by the sun - false, as the solar emission cycles have failed to correlate to the observed temperature rise. It is caused by natural cycles - no evidence, as past natural cycles do not correlate to current observations, so hypothesizing the first iteration of a brand new cycle both misses the point (cycles have their own causes) and therefore is generally silly (as this naturally points to the necessity of a hypothesis to explain the cycle, and thus boils down to a hypothesis that there's 'some other explanation'). It is caused by volcanoes - false, as CO2 emmissions of volcanoes are a percentage point or two of what humans emit, and sulfur compounds are observed to rapidly leave the atmosphere, similar to the dust compounds they throw up (which has a net cooling effect).

So you may posit that a crowd who clings to disproved hypotheses are as equally following the scientific method as people who hold that the hypothesis that has become established theory because it fits observations, tests, and existing theory is most likely correct. But you would be completely wrong too.

You are free to 'not care' and refer to science as 'tripe' but the beautiful thing about science is that it is not an opinion poll. Everyone in the entire universe can believe that something is true, and if its experimentally disproved or contradicted by observation, then it's not true at all.

[Skeptic]

People who post things in invisible text can shampoo my crotch.

Where do I sign up?

[OMGturt1es]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?


How about: Depressing?


Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.

How about: Depressed?

[cwalner]

Americans putting -gate at the end of every scandal is a bit annoying.

I agree, so henceforce I will refer to all scandals other than Watergate with the suffix -Dome in honor of the Teapot Dome scandal.

As this one involves the weather, I would suggest:

Thunder Dome.

As all scandals do, eventually this one will subside and we will be able to move Beyond Thunder Dome.

[A.A. Alfie]

I agree, so henceforce I will refer to all scandals other than Watergate with the suffix -Dome in honor of the Teapot Dome scandal.

As this one involves the weather, I would suggest:

Thunder Dome.

As all scandals do, eventually this one will subside and we will be able to move Beyond Thunder Dome.

So, it's just time that required?

We don't need another hero?

[Howie Felterbush]

Excluding the possibility that one side is totally correct and the other side is totally wrong, is also quite wrong.

Agreed. At this point, I'm not ready to discount anything. My mind is not made up either way.

[GreyArea]

Actually, it may be a very appropriate name.

Watergate had to do with a conspiracy to break into the offices of the political opposition to look for dirt that could be turned into a scandal in the lead-up to an important deadline (after which a full investigation wouldn't matter), all in support of a campaign to maintain incumbent power. The CRU break-in looks like a similar kind of effort.

What's more, the CRU in England appears to be only one of at least two different targets on different continents. There are allegations now that there were physical and virtual attempts in recent months to break into climatological data at the University of Victoria, in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282

If this is true, I have to ask if this espionage is coordinated, and if there were other sites targeted. We already need to ask who was behind the CRU break-in, and what their motives were, and hopefully the investigation will find something. But should we look at UVic just as deeply? The timing of these attempts suggests the possibility of coordination. Has any other university or agency faced similar attacks?

[GreyICE]

Actually, it may be a very appropriate name.

Watergate had to do with a conspiracy to break into the offices of the political opposition to look for dirt that could be turned into a scandal in the lead-up to an important deadline (after which a full investigation wouldn't matter), all in support of a campaign to maintain incumbent power. The CRU break-in looks like a similar kind of effort.

What's more, the CRU in England appears to be only one of at least two different targets on different continents. There are allegations now that there were physical and virtual attempts in recent months to break into climatological data at the University of Victoria, in Canada.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2300282

If this is true, I have to ask if this espionage is coordinated, and if there were other sites targeted. We already need to ask who was behind the CRU break-in, and what their motives were, and hopefully the investigation will find something. But should we look at UVic just as deeply? The timing of these attempts suggests the possibility of coordination. Has any other university or agency faced similar attacks?
/b/ is /b/ored is my hypothesis.

[Dr Adequate]

There's an old sating that a British is someone who says that if A thinks 2+2=4, and B thinks 2+2=17, the truth is surely somewhere in between. I know some old sayings about Jews, but for some reason I have never felt them worth repeating.

[GreyArea]

/b/ is /b/ored is my hypothesis.

I hadn't thought of that. ;)

But, of course, they don't believe in anything but lulz. This is too much work for them.

[JihadJane]

I really dislike the term climategate when referring to the hacked emails and fallout from same
Can we find a better name?

Securityfencegate?

Whilst at it, some better terms for warmers would be appreciated also.

Leg?

[GreyICE]

I hadn't thought of that. ;)

But, of course, they don't believe in anything but lulz. This is too much work for them.

I'd point out that they've spent weeks ruining people's lives, hacked Sarah Palin's email account, have continued a multi-month campaign against Scientology, all for the lulz.

Don't underestimate their dedication.

[KingMerv00]

Chart! Graph! Peer review!! Hacked e-mail!! This guy says... That guy says... This website says... Yeah, but this guy says...

Awww...

I apologize on behalf of reality that looking at things and figuring them out can be hard sometimes.

[shadron]

Yeah, modern change must really be tough from those who were brought up in the middle ages, unused to such violence.

[A.A. Alfie]

I've just read about a new term for the warmers. It's not mine, so don't blame me..

Warm-mongers

wonder if it'll catch on?

[GreyICE]

I've just read about a new term for the warmers. It's not mine, so don't blame me..

Warm-mongers

wonder if it'll catch on?

I have a new hypothesis: Taking you off ignore was a bad idea.

I gave you a fair chance. I even defended you. You're not asking questions, you're 'asking questions' 9/11 truther style.

[A.A. Alfie]

I have a new hypothesis: Taking you off ignore was a bad idea.

I gave you a fair chance. I even defended you. You're not asking questions, you're 'asking questions' 9/11 truther style.

Too bad, Greyice - I am sorry you feel that way.
Whlst I am appreciative of your support it seems you don't recognise when I am joking. I take the piss out of both sides (and myself) regularly.

That said, I have found all too many comments to be downright offensive when it comes to legitimate questions, so I changed my tack. The constant barrage of abuse has become so much the norm that any question was treated with abuse, ridicule and ad homs. I found I was explaining myself and my position over and over again. Yet here I am doing it again.

The warmer-alarmists clearly like to intimidate people into submission. I am not one so easily intimidated and scared off.

So, as I said, I have changed my tack.

I am not a denier, but a skeptic. I simply have changed the tone of my words to make it clear that I am on that side, as there seemed little point in arguing my position for the 100th time.

So, now to you (and others no doubt) I am a denier. That is the word they would have me wear. So I will wear it. Not happliy, but that's what they wanted.

In the meantime I will continue to stir the pot, knowing full well that anything that gets said or posted by me will be shouted down and I will be lambasted (whether the question is fair or not).

But that is the way of the warmer isn't it? Consensus by angry suppression.

[JihadJane]

Isn't it getting warmer, though?

[A.A. Alfie]

Nothing better fro climategate yet.

I like 'gullibles' for warmers though.

[JihadJane]

Blipgate?

[Earthborn]

Isn't it getting warmer, though?Here (http://www.ted.com/talks/lewis_pugh_swims_the_north_pole.html) is a guy who swam the North Pole, and he says it still is *********** freezing. Therefore Global Warming is a myth.