Hide The Decline

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Edited by LibraryLady: 

There was a notification in another thread not to post these email. Posting them in the video is included.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh dear. Looking on the bright side: at least while the conspiracy theorists are watching that they aren't pestering professional climate scientists for data to do their own analyses at home in their spare time.

I sit next to an angry climate change sceptic at work. It's embarrassing when you work in a oil and gas support company, a visitor walks past and sees in the cubical next to you lots of graphs printed on A4 pinned to the walls with writing in felt-tip pen on them, stating such things as "THE WORLD IS COOLING!!"

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I don't post in the AGW/ACC threads, because I don't have anything to add, but that video really does emphasise the colossal boner the deniers have for AL Gore (cutesy impending prison rape scene) considering he has absolutely nothing to do with the University of East Angular.

 

[BenBurch]

I don't post in the AGW/ACC threads, because I don't have anything to add, but that video really does emphasise the colossal boner the deniers have for AL Gore (cutesy impending prison rape scene) considering he has absolutely nothing to do with the University of East Angular.

I find it very odd because he is nearly a non-entity to scientists working on this.

 

[blutoski]

I don't post in the AGW/ACC threads, because I don't have anything to add, but that video really does emphasise the colossal boner the deniers have for AL Gore (cutesy impending prison rape scene) considering he has absolutely nothing to do with the University of East Angular.

It also undermines many AGW skeptics' attempt to portray themselves as nonpartisans who are simply interested in the scientific facts.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It also undermines many AGW skeptics' attempt to portray themselves as nonpartisans who are simply interested in the scientific facts.

I don't follow.
What does the "It" in the above sentence refer to?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I don't follow.
What does the "It" in the above sentence refer to?

Getting enjoyment and verification of their beliefs from a science-free, partisan musical cartoon about a subject which does not rely on politics for its validity?

AGW-deniers really seem to see it as a "them and us" struggle.

The barrage of nonsensical crap I hear each week at work is making me wonder if it should be classed as a mental illness.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't post in the AGW/ACC threads, because I don't have anything to add, but that video really does emphasise the colossal boner the deniers have for AL Gore (cutesy impending prison rape scene) considering he has absolutely nothing to do with the University of East Angular.

Except he used some of their data in his movie as I understand it.

I find it very odd because he is nearly a non-entity to scientists working on this.

But in many peoples eyes he is the marquis face for the warmer religion.

Getting enjoyment and verification of their beliefs from a science-free, partisan musical cartoon about a subject which does not rely on politics for its validity?

I suppose political cartoonists have no place either?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I suppose political cartoonists have no place either?

Mocking politicians, yes. Mocking science, no.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Mocking politicians, yes. Mocking science, no.

Mocking science? I thought they were mocking a scientist (or two). Are the scientists Sacred cows? How so? Should religious leaders be exempt too, sportspeople, celebrities and other public faces? Or just scientists?

Seems to me if they want to make themselves public property via lectures and their own polics or religion, they are public property (to a point).

 

[brodski]

the University of East Angular.

Are you trying to claim that my alma mater is totally bent? I admit that some member of one research unit did live up to the school motto and did "do different", but still...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Mocking science? I thought they were mocking a scientist (or two). Are the scientists Sacred cows? How so? Should religious leaders be exempt too, sportspeople, celebrities and other public faces? Or just scientists?

Seems to me if they want to make themselves public property via lectures and their own polics or religion, they are public property (to a point).

The cartoon is mocking the work of the scientists featured. I.e. Science.

Science does not require nor does it benefit in the slightest from being mocked. Doing so results in harm to everyone because it leads the uneducated and stupid of the world to think that every idea they (or their favourite celebrities) pull out of their asses is just as valid as the ideas that stem from decades of research by scientists.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Are you trying to claim that my alma mater is totally bent? I admit that some member of one research unit did live up to the school motto and did "do different", but still...

It was actually a tremendously subtle transatlantic play on words, which I was sure no-one would get, referencing both Saint Jade of Goody who used it on Big Brother, when she thought it was somewhere foreign, and Glenn Beck who called it 'East Anjular' (I think) when he claimed the leaked E-mails proved there was no global warming.

I may have misremembered both of the above, in which case it's just a Typo.

 

[Badger]

Getting enjoyment and verification of their beliefs from a science-free, partisan musical cartoon about a subject which does not rely on politics for its validity?

AGW-deniers really seem to see it as a "them and us" struggle.

The barrage of nonsensical crap I hear each week at work is making me wonder if it should be classed as a mental illness.

For posterity, and irony.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The cartoon is mocking the work of the scientists featured. I.e. Science.

Maybe.
I just looked at it again (4th time) it's still hiarious.
It seems to me that one M Mann and HIS science is the brunt of the joke. But you can read it any way if you want.

Science does not require nor does it benefit in the slightest from being mocked. Doing so results in harm to everyone because it leads the uneducated and stupid of the world to think that every idea they (or their favourite celebrities) pull out of their asses is just as valid as the ideas that stem from decades of research by scientists.

As opposed to letting the uneducated and stupid believe (possibly) faked science backed up by a mates club that peer reviews the work?

In comedy, nothing is sacred - even these gods of science.

I would ask again, is it only scientists and their trade that shouldnt be mocked? What others would you put in that category?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Maybe.
I just looked at it again (4th time) it's still hiarious.
It seems to me that one M Mann and HIS science is the brunt of the joke. But you can read it any way if you want.

How did Mann invent the greenhouse effect when Fourier discovered it 1824. So if it's anyone's science, it's his.

As opposed to letting the uneducated and stupid believe (possibly) faked science backed up by a mates club that peer reviews the work?

The explanation for the "hide the decline" statement in the private email has been given. In what way does this indicate that this or any other part of climate science has been faked?

In comedy, nothing is sacred - even these gods of science.

I don't know about that. For example, has anyone made Carry on Auschwitz yet?

High jinks in the shower room is soon brought under control when the guard turns on the showers...

Billy Connolly's joke about wishing the takers of a british a hostage would get on with hacking his head off (as they had done to two Americans previously) didn't go down to well with most people either.

I would ask again, is it only scientists and their trade that shouldnt be mocked? What others would you put in that category?

That depends on the motivation for the mockery. This particular cartoon was an attempt to use the phrase "hide the decline" in a way which made out all climate scientists whose research supports AGW theory routinely and blatently fake results.

If we can't believe Mann et al. why should we believe any climate scientists? For example, why is Lindzen any more credible than Mann?

 

[AlBell]

If we can't believe Mann et al. why should we believe any climate scientists?

When you have the answer, let the rest of the world know.

For example, why is Lindzen any more credible than Mann?

Who says he is?

 

[mhaze]

.....That depends on the motivation for the mockery. This particular cartoon was an attempt to use the phrase "hide the decline" in a way which made out all climate scientists whose research supports AGW theory routinely and blatently fake results.

That'd be a good point if it wasn't completely groundless. The video references specific climate scientists and issues.

There is no direct or implied reference to all climate scientists. So that's just in your mind.

EG, you made it up.

Cheers!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How did Mann invent the greenhouse effect when Fourier discovered it 1824. So if it's anyone's science, it's his.

Who actually cares who's science it is? It is topical humour.

The explanation for the "hide the decline" statement in the private email has been given. In what way does this indicate that this or any other part of climate science has been faked?

Oh I see. He gives his explanation and end of story right? Sadly no. This is going to take more like a year to sort out, not a week. And we here, certainly wont be the ones determining the truth of anything. In the meantime settle in for more ridiculing of the false gods.

I don't know about that. For example, has anyone made Carry on Auschwitz yet?

High jinks in the shower room is soon brought under control when the guard turns on the showers...

Billy Connolly's joke about wishing the takers of a british a hostage would get on with hacking his head off (as they had done to two Americans previously) didn't go down to well with most people either.

Nothing is sacred does not equate to everything is in good taste.

http://video.google.com.au/videosea...+or+not+to+be+lyrics&vid=-4467537389292367313

Mel Brooks: The Hitler rap
Charlie Chaplin: The Great Dictator

Just a couple of little known comedians that have taken on Nazism and Hitler - off the top of my head

And another link pointing out nothing is sacred - not even Auschwitz.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1499500

That depends on the motivation for the mockery. This particular cartoon was an attempt to use the phrase "hide the decline" in a way which made out all climate scientists whose research supports AGW theory routinely and blatently fake results.

The motivation for comedy or satire (you say mockery) is to get a laugh.
In this case: Success!

 

[a_unique_person]

When you have the answer, let the rest of the world know.


Who says he is?

So because we can't know anything perfectly, we are better off not even trying to learn anything?