Climategate Lies - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-10-2010, 02:51 PM   #196
Acrobat
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 459
Local Time: 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
If scientists raise serious concerns and warn the public then they are alarmist. If scientists take a moderate line and suggest a precautionary approach pending greater understanding of the risks then it's an unconvincing fallback.

The only scientists that you respect are ones that tell you what you want to hear. That would be that CO2 emissions are if anything good for the planet. Climate change is a Marxist fraud. Ocean acidification isn't fully understood and therefore nothing to worry about etc.

You mock and snipe at the concept of having qualified scientists critique the work of their peers as if this is just a racket for keeping research grants. You don't consider that academia is competitive

You accuse me of being an authoritarian liar and imply that my willingness to acknowledge when I don't know is evidence of me being stupid. How the hell does that work? What kind of authoritarian liars first response to a question about a field they readily acknowledge they aren't an expert in is "I don't know"?

The sheer amount of psychological projection that you're engaged in is something to behold. You are a credulous and agenda-driven person and you ought to reflect on your motivations.
"Climate change is a Marxist fraud"

Is it a Maurice Strong, Robert Muller on behalf of the United Nations fraud, using a paper written by them to get Enron, I mean Cap and Trade passed to move massive dollars into other peoples pockets?

The very nature of their self acknowledged scheme would naturally have to be a consideration to the whole notion of Climate Crisis.Does their officially sanctioned plan affect the science? That is a legitmate question.

I personally don't buy it, but people do things for that kind of money, far worse than fudging numbers. So before tossing around Trillons of dollars and considering there were some type of issues, acknowledged by the scientist, wouldn't it be prudent to ask questions?

It is not called Climate Change or global warming any more. Officially. they use Climate Crisis now .


All I know, the beach hasn't changed a bit, nor has the weather in 25 years of living at the same spot. My house was supposed to be underwater 10 years ago. Belize isn't any different, nor is Costa Rica , or the forrest near David, Panama . It isn't any different now as it was then. Fisherman livng in the keys say the same thing. they know where they live, and probably have beter "measurments" in their heads than any researcher will ever hope to achieve .

But again, with the Trilions of dllars involved, in a scheme exactly like Enron being busted" wouldn't it be prudent to have all these questions answered first.

Maurice Strong said in 1969, the world was done in 5 years, In 75, he said 5 it was done, and so on and so on. 30 years, It is now his pronouncement that 2012 is the end. That is a te magic date he has now proclaimed.

When the guy who wrote this plan, keeps saying that, it raises a lot of Questions. The Other Author , Robert Muller, has his "church" in Costa Rica he is always singing the praises of how great that country and enviroment is , in spite of a large bit of development. if these experts say it is thriving, hard to say it is dying.

In Brasil , The rain forrest is losing ground daily. losts of it. Has nothing to do with the sun and moon, it involves bulldozers. The parts that are not beng bulldozed , is thriving. How can that be? maybe we should study bulldozers, and fight it that way. It could be stopped in a day, yet the gov of Brasil, see's no problem. Why?

Where is the outrage ? is it the forrest or the paper ( money) that is more important? The lack of tells me something is wrong, and that it isn't about numbers, or trends. The POTENTIAL for skewing data for money is very real. i am not saying they are, but the potential is real, and huge, so whatever they were doing with the emails, and Uncle Al and his info, means that this should be examined with a fine tooth comb, upside down and backwards before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars, to make someones Bank account larger.

Whatever they did, wasn't right, or a very bad example of Judgement. They brought it on themselves.

It was pretty freaking cold in Florida he last 2 winters.. Is that a fluke?
__________________

__________________
Benji2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 09:17 PM   #197
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
No it hasn't! If Malthus was right we would have outstriped our resources already. He would have to be clairvoyant to know that technology wouldn't change:

Malthusian catastrophe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I don't disagree that factors like the green revolution and modern medicine have staved off population bombs but it's a mistake to think that the error of Ehrlich's predictions removes the threat.

The technological breakthroughs have diminishing returns; and we see it with hydrocarbon reserves, ore deposits and arable land.

We have technology that Malthus couldn't have imagined but the flipside has been population booms throughout the third world. That has been reasonably sustainable but there will be a larger human impact as people consume more resources.

I think it's fair to follow Jared Diamonds argument from Collapse that Rwanda was an example of a Malthusian Crisis and be more mindful about population pressures.

There are limits on growth and you're willfully blind if ignore them by assuming new technology will automatically solve the problem.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 09:20 PM   #198
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Your link has even old NASA claims that 2005 was the hottest year on record which are false.
The first page I found
Quote:
1934 is the hottest year on record

The skeptic argument...

1934 - hottest year on record
"In August 2007, Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech).

What the science says...
1934 was not the hottest year globally, only in the US.

Steve McIntyre's discovery of a glitch in the GISS temperature data is an impressive achievement. Make no mistake, it's an embarrassing error on the part of NASA. But what is the significance?

NASA's "Y2K" glitch
Contrary to many reports, the error wasn't a Y2K bug but a mixup over data corrections with the NOAA. NASA GISS obtain much of their temperature data from the NOAA who adjust the data to filter out primarily time-of-observation bias (although their corrections also include inhomogeneities and urban warming - more on NOAA adjustments). From January 2000, NASA were mistakenly using unadjusted data.

USA temperature versus global temperature trends
What is often overlooked is the temperature adjustments only applied to temperatures in 48 U.S. states. As the USA comprises only 2% of the globe, this has had infinitesimal effect on global trends.

The graph below (courtesy of Open Mind) compares the global temperature trend from before and after adjustments. Before the error was discovered, the trend was 0.185°C/decade. After corrections were made, the trend was still 0.185°C/decade. The change to the global mean was less than one thousandth of a degree.



Figure 1: Global temperature anomaly before (red squares) and after (black diamonds) NASA's "Y2K" corrections (Open Mind).
1934 is the hottest year on record

I couldn't find the press release where NASA withdrew the claim that 2005 was globally the hottest year on record.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 09:27 PM   #199
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
The arctic is not melting with these temperatures:

You've done well posting a graph without explaining what it's measuring but you do realise that when it peaks over the blue line the temperature is >1 degree C and ice will melt.

I also looked into Dr. Rory Spencer and it turns out that apart from being a climate change contrarian he's a creationist. I'm not sure how rigorous his science is but the creationist part leads me to doubt his credibility.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2010, 11:22 PM   #200
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji2112 View Post
"Climate change is a Marxist fraud"

Is it a Maurice Strong, Robert Muller on behalf of the United Nations fraud, using a paper written by them to get Enron, I mean Cap and Trade passed to move massive dollars into other peoples pockets?

The very nature of their self acknowledged scheme would naturally have to be a consideration to the whole notion of Climate Crisis.Does their officially sanctioned plan affect the science? That is a legitmate question.

I personally don't buy it, but people do things for that kind of money, far worse than fudging numbers. So before tossing around Trillons of dollars and considering there were some type of issues, acknowledged by the scientist, wouldn't it be prudent to ask questions?

It is not called Climate Change or global warming any more. Officially. they use Climate Crisis now .


All I know, the beach hasn't changed a bit, nor has the weather in 25 years of living at the same spot. My house was supposed to be underwater 10 years ago. Belize isn't any different, nor is Costa Rica , or the forrest near David, Panama . It isn't any different now as it was then. Fisherman livng in the keys say the same thing. they know where they live, and probably have beter "measurments" in their heads than any researcher will ever hope to achieve .

But again, with the Trilions of dllars involved, in a scheme exactly like Enron being busted" wouldn't it be prudent to have all these questions answered first.

Maurice Strong said in 1969, the world was done in 5 years, In 75, he said 5 it was done, and so on and so on. 30 years, It is now his pronouncement that 2012 is the end. That is a te magic date he has now proclaimed.

When the guy who wrote this plan, keeps saying that, it raises a lot of Questions. The Other Author , Robert Muller, has his "church" in Costa Rica he is always singing the praises of how great that country and enviroment is , in spite of a large bit of development. if these experts say it is thriving, hard to say it is dying.

In Brasil , The rain forrest is losing ground daily. losts of it. Has nothing to do with the sun and moon, it involves bulldozers. The parts that are not beng bulldozed , is thriving. How can that be? maybe we should study bulldozers, and fight it that way. It could be stopped in a day, yet the gov of Brasil, see's no problem. Why?

Where is the outrage ? is it the forrest or the paper ( money) that is more important? The lack of tells me something is wrong, and that it isn't about numbers, or trends. The POTENTIAL for skewing data for money is very real. i am not saying they are, but the potential is real, and huge, so whatever they were doing with the emails, and Uncle Al and his info, means that this should be examined with a fine tooth comb, upside down and backwards before we spend trillions and trillions of dollars, to make someones Bank account larger.

Whatever they did, wasn't right, or a very bad example of Judgement. They brought it on themselves.

It was pretty freaking cold in Florida he last 2 winters.. Is that a fluke?
It seems a little lazy to use "gee, I don't feel any big differences" as an argument against millions' of scientists' collective research pointing towards climate change.

And while you are right that the potential for skewing of data for money is real, every independent inquiry into major studies done on climate change so far have shown that it hasn't happened. Again, it's a little lazy to use the mere mention of the potential for data corruption as an argument against the data.

It's like arguing against the use of seat belts because there exists the possibility that the studies were skewed in favor of seat belt manufacturers. The possibility exists, sure, but there's no solid evidence to show that that possibility actually occurred. The largest claim of wrongdoing was independently investigated and shown to be not true.

There will be those that will claim that seatbelt regulations are a huge fraud because they've been in a couple accidents without them and didn't fly out the window, or they've known people who have never been in an accident, so why increase costs by adding devices they don't need? It's the rise of the nanny state! Marxist fraud aimed at coddling our citizenry and stripping us of our freedom!!
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2010, 10:40 PM   #201
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,885
Local Time: 01:59 PM
To summarize the thread for everyone just catching up:

Point: Logic, facts, studies, science.
Counterpoint: WHITEWASH! ALARMIST! KARL MARX!
__________________
PhilsFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 12:35 AM   #202
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benji2112 View Post

When the guy who wrote this plan,
Where is this plan?

You need to stop listening to Glenn Beck, his poison has taken over...

Take a year off and look into legitimate sources and you won't be so apt to fall into these conspiracies.

If you believe in medicine, then you should believe in real science...

Don't fall for the junk.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 01:22 AM   #203
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I also looked into Dr. Rory Spencer and it turns out that apart from being a climate change contrarian he's a creationist. I'm not sure how rigorous his science is but the creationist part leads me to doubt his credibility.
Intelligent design actually. He uses satellite data which has nothing to do with his religious beliefs. BTW ice usually melts in the summer. And BTW there have been natural periods where the ice completely melted. It's no surprise when you eliminate the medieval warming period the purpose is to make our beliefs change so that we believe our time is unprecedented.

It also doesn't help when Michael Mann makes a conclusion that the hot weather in the east is due to AGW which undermines his argument against skeptics pointing at cold weather.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 01:30 AM   #204
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
It seems a little lazy to use "gee, I don't feel any big differences" as an argument against millions' of scientists' collective research pointing towards climate change.
I agree except I wouldn't use the word millions and I don't think the research is collective unless you still think there is a consensus on CO2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
And while you are right that the potential for skewing of data for money is real, every independent inquiry into major studies done on climate change so far have shown that it hasn't happened. Again, it's a little lazy to use the mere mention of the potential for data corruption as an argument against the data.
This is inconclusive precisely because the science wasn't investigated only methods. If skeptics aren't answered the debate continues. The investigations also showed that scientists should have reacted to Freedom of Information requests which Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, etc don't want to follow which hardly looks like science to me. They even try and make it look like if their work can be verified it will slow down scientific progress. Trying to find errors is precisely part of the scientific method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
There will be those that will claim that seatbelt regulations are a huge fraud because they've been in a couple accidents without them and didn't fly out the window, or they've known people who have never been in an accident, so why increase costs by adding devices they don't need? It's the rise of the nanny state! Marxist fraud aimed at coddling our citizenry and stripping us of our freedom!!
There is evidence of Marxist fraud. An attempt at world government was proposed at Copenhagen. It's only because they failed that you can feel no worry.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 06:32 AM   #205
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Intelligent design actually.
Intelligent design is creationism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 08:52 AM   #206
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There is evidence of Marxist fraud. An attempt at world government was proposed at Copenhagen. It's only because they failed that you can feel no worry.
This is the reason science was invented.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 11:28 AM   #207
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There is evidence of Marxist fraud. An attempt at world government was proposed at Copenhagen. It's only because they failed that you can feel no worry.
Is that your evidence? That someone proposed an "attempt at world government" at a summit?

Come on.
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 02:49 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
Is that your evidence? That someone proposed an "attempt at world government" at a summit?

Come on.
Are you saying they weren't? What do you think worldwide cap and trade would be? I already posted the video of Al Gore talking about global governance. This is already a fact. They simply failed because many countries didn't want to give up any sovreignty (especially on energy). The U.N. would love global governance because it would be a steady stream of cash from all over the world and there would be no country for capital to escape to.

YouTube - Al Gore London 7th July 2009 discussing the fight against climate change

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...iht-edban.html

Quote:
Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for success:

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.

A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 03:09 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Intelligent design is creationism.
I think there are some differences because you don't have to believe in the Bible's version of creation to believe in intelligent design. I don't agree with it but as long as Roy isn't talking to God to give him satellite data it's just a personal opinion for him. I don't think you HAVE to be a complete atheist to be a scientist. I'm sure there are scientists that have crappy bizarre political beliefs "Why Socialism? by Einstein". What matters is the method and work and of course review by skeptics to help advance science.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2010, 03:47 PM   #210
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think there are some differences because you don't have to believe in the Bible's version of creation to believe in intelligent design.


then you're lying to yourself, or you don't understand what is implied by Intelligent Design.

it was a theory put forward by the "Discovery Institute" in an attempt to graft some semblance of science onto Creationism.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com