Climategate Lies

[Benji2112]

new zealand was also the only country that allowed women to vote at first. someone always has to be the first to do something. there's public transport to be had, and then you won't be paying more for gas. i can understand why people are up in arms about this, but the world as a whole needs to stop relying on oil so much, especially foreign oil.

Eventually, the people riding the bus will be paying higher fares for the increased cost of gas, not to mention the taxes.

 

[coolian2]

maybe comment when you know what the local situation is

 

[purpleoscar]

new zealand was also the only country that allowed women to vote at first. someone always has to be the first to do something. there's public transport to be had, and then you won't be paying more for gas. i can understand why people are up in arms about this, but the world as a whole needs to stop relying on oil so much, especially foreign oil.

I'm all for investing on research and development. Once a promising technology comes up you can bet venture capitalists will want to seize on it. It's also important to know that technology can develop very gradually and we need to allow for that. Destroying the economy will reduce the capital available for those new technologies. It's well known that richer economies can afford more environmental standards and higher technology. Taxing reliable cheap energy will reduce jobs and the green jobs won't replace them for probably decades (assuming my prediction that we will find a panacea technology in decades and not later). It's foolhardy. The main target for the G20 was the economy. We have to have priorities. You can't push for economic growth and then saddle the world economy with world energy taxes. Also if countries try and do something first (like energy taxes) why do business there? Cap and trade was for a worldwide solution to reduce CO2 not because we want to replace finite fossil fuels. We can't just use a solution to one issue and then when the science doesn't pan out make up a quick excuse to use cap and trade for another issue. It screams of powergrab to me.

 

[BVS]

You calling them quacks and talking about the "true" science simply means that you will ignore political affiliation with the U.N. because appeal to authority works on you better than it does on me.

FAIL

I looked at the science that was not related to the UN first and foremost, but nice try.

It's not about a resume.

Can you send me a link to any of these scientist that believe the more CO2 the better, and who have tested it on a larger scale?

It's up to the people making the claims to prove themselves not the rest of the public to hand over sovreignty to scientists (who financially benefit)

Do you know any of the rich scientists?

BTW BVS the reason why there is a political backlash against AGW is precisely because AGW has political and economic consequences. Why should I ignore politics and economics? Who's bringing up the subject first? Isn't worldwide cap and trade related to politics and economics?

I'm not saying ignore politics and economics, I'm just saying do not allow politics and economics to influence what science you believe in.

Politics and to a lesser degree economics is subjective, do not allow the subjective to shape the objective. Some of the most dangerous mistakes in history have happened that way.

 

[purpleoscar]

FAIL

I looked at the science that was not related to the UN first and foremost, but nice try.

And? You didn't like it because you are convinced that CO2 will increase the temperature 6 degrees in the next 100 years? What about those computer projections that even in the Climategate emails shows that there are missing natural and manmade effects not properly understood and accounted for in the code for the projections?

Can you send me a link to any of these scientist that believe the more CO2 the better, and who have tested it on a larger scale?

I did. CO2 science is the website that displays those studies. You call them quacks but they are scientists.

Do you know any of the rich scientists?

I don't know of poor government bureaucrats. Certainly after what is known about what Phil Jones collected you should be embarrassed to ask this question. World cap and trade would involve trillions. Scientists are always looking for a steady source of cash flow (like everybody else). To admit errors may mean finding another job.

I'm not saying ignore politics and economics, I'm just saying do not allow politics and economics to influence what science you believe in.

So if the politics and economics proposed by the U.N. won't reduce CO2 without catastrophic economics why should we do it? It's either an emergency or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. BTW many of the scientists on the IPCC are much more guarded on their opinions than viewed on the policy summary which is created by politicians. It is possible that the science is actually not conclusive enough to justify the political and economic remedies.

Politics and to a lesser degree economics is subjective, do not allow the subjective to shape the objective. Some of the most dangerous mistakes in history have happened that way.

More famous last words.

 

[BVS]

And? You didn't like it because you are convinced that CO2 will increase the temperature 6 degrees in the next 100 years? What about those computer projections that even in the Climategate emails shows that there are missing natural and manmade effects not properly understood and accounted for in the code for the projections?

I didn't like what? You do realize that there is science outside of the UN that supports climate change as well.

I did. CO2 science is the website that displays those studies. You call them quacks but they are scientists.

Oh, I thought you meant someone who's actually done the studies on a large scale. CO2 science is just a website that collects editorials that support their cause.

I don't know of poor government bureaucrats. Certainly after what is known about what Phil Jones collected you should be embarrassed to ask this question. World cap and trade would involve trillions. Scientists are always looking for a steady source of cash flow (like everybody else). To admit errors may mean finding another job.

Is this how you feel about all scientists?

So if the politics and economics proposed by the U.N. won't reduce CO2 without catastrophic economics why should we do it? It's either an emergency or not. You can't have your cake and eat it too. BTW many of the scientists on the IPCC are much more guarded on their opinions than viewed on the policy summary which is created by politicians. It is possible that the science is actually not conclusive enough to justify the political and economic remedies.

I think your biggest problem in grasping this is that you're thinking in the now, in the box, and can't think beyond that.

In the overall realm of things lifelong planet wise, yes it is an emergency. I think the problem is too many of you can't think beyond your own lives or pocketbooks. It's a shame.

More famous last words.

Do you not agree? Really?

 

[purpleoscar]

I didn't like what? You do realize that there is science outside of the UN that supports climate change as well.

And what do they say about CO2 affecting the climate? Enlighten me. It's fun seeing you throw the IPCC under the bus. That's a good start.

Oh, I thought you meant someone who's actually done the studies on a large scale. CO2 science is just a website that collects editorials that support their cause.

Creates editorials based on science. My point is that scientists don't have a consensus and are still doing the work. We shouldn't stop the work and make policies before solid evidence is brought out. It probably will take decades for us to understand how the natural climate system works. Everyone is supporting a cause. The problem is which one is closer to the absolute truth? None can be the absolute truth at this point, but only approximate it maybe.

Is this how you feel about all scientists?

No just the ones that want to rob me with bogus projections which they are now backing away from (Jones, Mann).

I think your biggest problem in grasping this is that you're thinking in the now, in the box, and can't think beyond that.

Again this is another statement that can be reverted onto you. The people making claims that man-made CO2 is creating a current crisis haven't been able to back it up. This is already confirmed by Jones.

BTW this concept of "thinking outside the box" is one of the most overused cliches which people use to vaguely dodge an argument. The "box" or "paradigm" or "concept" that is being talked about is that CO2 is the main climate driver. I'm saying this concept or box is too simple an explanation and the scientists will have to develop a much more complicated paradigm to match the ultra complicated reality of the world. Concepts are not absolute reality. They can be useful when they mimic reality closely. The reality is that we have to get scientists (not just climate scientists) from all disciplines including Geology, Astrophysics, climate scientists, ocean scientists, biologists etc. to come up with enough good science so that a possible big picture paradigm can be created so we can actually see our effect on nature and it's effect on us and what we can actually control. Currently we are nowhere near that.

Blacklisting scientists who disagree with the current paradigm will actually slow the scientific process down.

In the overall realm of things lifelong planet wise, yes it is an emergency. I think the problem is too many of you can't think beyond your own lives or pocketbooks. It's a shame.

Is that what you think of people who care about their pocketbooks? Conservatives believe that liberals have no compassion for taxpayers and I think this is more evidence of that. I do not for one second believe that you don't care about your pocketbook and I don't believe that special interest groups and rent seekers that will benefit from cap and trade don't care about making money.

Tell me, why should a taxpayer feel guilty for keeping money they EARNED and those who collect from a regulation (unearned money) shouldn't? You've got the cart before the horse. We want green jobs to EARN their way. It's not an entitlement.

Do you not agree? Really?

There is no consensus on CO2. Even the Royal Society has to now allow for different points of view. It's almost like talking to people who have amnesia and can't remember important recent facts. With the debacle on IPCC reports there has to be more study done before we blame a trace gas as a main cause for climate change, because you do realise there is a thing called natural climate change don't you?

 

[purpleoscar]

More inaccurate predictions from the Nixon library (1969):

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf

The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the century several persons raised the question whether this would change the temperature of the atmosphere. Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence has corne along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.
Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.

This prediction was bad and current predictions missed even when they were only months away. We obviously have to do more due diligence before we commit trillions of dollars, because the process is not a "simple one".

 

[BVS]

And what do they say about CO2 affecting the climate? Enlighten me. It's fun seeing you throw the IPCC under the bus. That's a good start.

Not throwing anyone under any bus, I'm just letting you know that there is science outside the UN that has the same findings.

Creates editorials based on science. My point is that scientists don't have a consensus and are still doing the work. We shouldn't stop the work and make policies before solid evidence is brought out. It probably will take decades for us to understand how the natural climate system works. Everyone is supporting a cause. The problem is which one is closer to the absolute truth? None can be the absolute truth at this point, but only approximate it maybe.

So you're going to wait until every scientist agrees? Do you know where we would be if we had always done this?

My point, take a look at the scientist you post. Backyard experiments, you seem to post a lot of editorials rather than actual papers, if you really took a step back you would recognise the junk science, it's pretty easy to sight.

No just the ones that want to rob me with bogus projections which they are now backing away from (Jones, Mann).

So all the scientist that have the same findings and living on meager means don't count.

Is that what you think of people who care about their pocketbooks? Conservatives believe that liberals have no compassion for taxpayers and I think this is more evidence of that. I do not for one second believe that you don't care about your pocketbook and I don't believe that special interest groups and rent seekers that will benefit from cap and trade don't care about making money.

You really have a way glancing over the obvious. I said those that can't think BEYOND their pocketbooks. Not everyone votes, thinks, or works purely for their own self interest, if we did most of us would be Republicans

Do I look after my own pocketbook? Of course, but it doesn't mean I'm going to allow it to dictate what's right or wrong.

Tell me, why should a taxpayer feel guilty for keeping money they EARNED and those who collect from a regulation (unearned money) shouldn't? You've got the cart before the horse. We want green jobs to EARN their way. It's not an entitlement.

Where did I say anything about guilt? You've been listening to too much Glenn.

Do you have any links about these green jobs where people just get paid to do nothing?

 

[BVS]

More inaccurate predictions from the Nixon library (1969):

http://nixonlibrary.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf



This prediction was bad and current predictions missed even when they were only months away. We obviously have to do more due diligence before we commit trillions of dollars, because the process is not a "simple one".

You realize this was a memo and not a scientific paper, right?

 

[INDY500]

Al Gore has a fever.

 

[Bluer White]

^ Hydro-electric power?

 

[BVS]

Diamond?

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think it's supposed to be a sex crazed poodle

 

[maycocksean]

I don't get it.

 

[Benji2112]

maybe comment when you know what the local situation is

I have been to New Zealand many times. I pick grapes and work with winemakers as a hobby . I even talk and exchange e-mails with friends there. It is an issue to them that they express to me.

Like friends do..... normally.

 

[Benji2112]

FAIL

I looked at the science that was not related to the UN first and foremost, but nice try.


Can you send me a link to any of these scientist that believe the more CO2 the better, and who have tested it on a larger scale?


Do you know any of the rich scientists?



I'm not saying ignore politics and economics, I'm just saying do not allow politics and economics to influence what science you believe in.

Politics and to a lesser degree economics is subjective, do not allow the subjective to shape the objective. Some of the most dangerous mistakes in history have happened that way.

Go to Home depot . Buy 2 plants the same size. Cover them with a plastic bowl or something and put c02 in one, don't put it in the other . Label the one with co2 so you don't forget .

A week later tell us which one is bigger . Want to bet which one is?


Yes, I know some very rich scientists . Ever hear of Gel capsules ?

 

[BVS]

Go to Home depot . Buy 2 plants the same size. Cover them with a plastic bowl or something and put c02 in one, don't put it in the other . Label the one with co2 so you don't forget .

A week later tell us which one is bigger . Want to bet which one is?

Yay, I love simpleton science.

 

[coolian2]

I have been to New Zealand many times. I pick grapes and work with winemakers as a hobby . I even talk and exchange e-mails with friends there. It is an issue to them that they express to me.

Like friends do..... normally.

it doesn't sound like you're visiting an area that covers much on public transport then.

simple fact is, it's a tax on consumption that's being passed on to consumers. if you don't want to pay it, consume less. as long as it's being paid in to the appropriate areas once it's been taxed (as it correctly is when petrol is taxed), it's good sense.

i find it funny that a conservative government that was elected on the back of reducing income tax is quite happy to reduce it only to jack taxes back up on indirect items. not to mention they're entirely capable of getting away from the ets, but they won't. it's just being done so john keys rich friends don't have to pay as much company tax and income tax.

 

[Benji2112]

Al Gore has a fever.

LOL His third Chakra is acting up again.

 

[coolian2]

the biggest issue with the green movement, as i see it, is the mainstream attitude of "if you're not with us, you're against us"

fact is, something drastic does need to be done. but because of this attitude if you dare to even take a moderate line of thinking you're wishing the planet dead. it's a tactic simpletons flock to - see the bush administration and the war on terror.

it's all just a race for power. if we didn't have idiots leading both sides of the crusade we'd be getting somewhere by now.

 

[Benji2112]

it doesn't sound like you're visiting an area that covers much on public transport then.

simple fact is, it's a tax on consumption that's being passed on to consumers. if you don't want to pay it, consume less. as long as it's being paid in to the appropriate areas once it's been taxed (as it correctly is when petrol is taxed), it's good sense.

i find it funny that a conservative government that was elected on the back of reducing income tax is quite happy to reduce it only to jack taxes back up on indirect items. not to mention they're entirely capable of getting away from the ets, but they won't. it's just being done so john keys rich friends don't have to pay as much company tax and income tax.

Been all over.

The point is, it increases the cost to produce,which they MUST pass it on They do have a price point at which people will not buy he Wine from New Zealand, and go to somewhere else.

so it is the Government shooting themselves in the foot. They do get revenue from the sale of the wines. People, especially in wines, are very price concious right now. Ask France how that all worked out. They almost lost the whole French wine industry

Kill the Vineyards, kill jobs, kill revenue. It rolls down the hill. prove the sceience, great, but they are not even close .

 

[Benji2112]

Yay, I love simpleton science.

cheap easy way to prove it. schools are doing it everywhere.

Try it. I will bet you which one is bigger and healthier

You pay for dinner at that place in SA that has all the animal heads on the wall. Forget the name. I will have the Lion steak.

 

[Benji2112]

the biggest issue with the green movement, as i see it, is the mainstream attitude of "if you're not with us, you're against us"

fact is, something drastic does need to be done. but because of this attitude if you dare to even take a moderate line of thinking you're wishing the planet dead. it's a tactic simpletons flock to - see the bush administration and the war on terror.

it's all just a race for power. if we didn't have idiots leading both sides of the crusade we'd be getting somewhere by now.

Amen to that. Maurice Strong, who wrote this crap of an idea said in 1969, we will be dead in 20 years. I think he was wrong.

The sad part is using the kids to promote this scam. Having your kid come home and say " my school says that we are all going to burn up and die if we dont recycle now "..... well those telling kids that are sick F's.

 

[BVS]

cheap easy way to prove it. schools are doing it everywhere.

Try it. I will bet you which one is bigger and healthier

And what if you place lifeforms in the same experiment? What if it's just not a plant but a whole eco-system?

A real doctor would have scoffed at your experiment suggestion.

 

[coolian2]

Been all over.

The point is, it increases the cost to produce,which they MUST pass it on They do have a price point at which people will not buy he Wine from New Zealand, and go to somewhere else.

so it is the Government shooting themselves in the foot. They do get revenue from the sale of the wines. People, especially in wines, are very price concious right now. Ask France how that all worked out. They almost lost the whole French wine industry

Kill the Vineyards, kill jobs, kill revenue. It rolls down the hill. prove the sceience, great, but they are not even close .

we're now talking about two different scenarios...

The sad part is using the kids to promote this scam. Having your kid come home and say " my school says that we are all going to burn up and die if we dont recycle now "..... well those telling kids that are sick F's.

there's no denying recycling and reusing products is beneficial. improving fuel efficiency of cars, planes, not being dependent on oil is good. not polluting and having a better environment is great. but i hate the jump that if we don't get these things tomorrow the earth is going to be uninhabitable by friday.

the first politician to say "hey, look. we've got a viable plan to make things better and we aren't going to incite panic about the state of the planet" should be very successful.

 

[coolian2]

And what if you place lifeforms in the same experiment? What if it's just not a plant but a whole eco-system?

A real doctor would have scoffed at your experiment suggestion.

x2

the problem with co2 isn't the plants, it's everything else in the eco-system. plants love carbon dioxide (well...), but people, birds and other animals....not so much.

 

[purpleoscar]

x2

the problem with co2 isn't the plants, it's everything else in the eco-system. plants love carbon dioxide (well...), but people, birds and other animals....not so much.

New Zealand could pay all the money in the world and zilch will be done by CO2. BTW planet earth has had 20 times the CO2 in the past and we are nowhere near it and won't be near it for hundreds of years. Conservatives simply inherited this mess and like all taxes and regulations it's hard politically to remove them once they are in.

 

[purpleoscar]

Not throwing anyone under any bus, I'm just letting you know that there is science outside the UN that has the same findings.

Yes but more details. What have they found out? What is their science? Do they have predictive models that have been more accurate than NASA and East Anglia?

So you're going to wait until every scientist agrees? Do you know where we would be if we had always done this?

When it comes to trillions of dollars yes. You don't know where we'll be either just like U.S. didn't know in 1969.

My point, take a look at the scientist you post. Backyard experiments, you seem to post a lot of editorials rather than actual papers, if you really took a step back you would recognise the junk science, it's pretty easy to sight.

It's not just backyard experiments. Plants are being positively affected by it already. (Why are tree rings getting bigger?)

So all the scientist that have the same findings and living on meager means don't count.

Sure they do. They just need to compete. I mean if the U.N. agrees with them there is no reason not to include them into the reports.

You really have a way glancing over the obvious. I said those that can't think BEYOND their pocketbooks. Not everyone votes, thinks, or works purely for their own self interest, if we did most of us would be Republicans

To reduce CO2 to past levels it would affect most people's pocketbook in a VERY noticable way.

Do I look after my own pocketbook? Of course, but it doesn't mean I'm going to allow it to dictate what's right or wrong.

Yes but it's your OPINION of what is right or wrong. In a democracy people want more evidence than "ooooohhh it could be so bad" especially when similar predictions in the past have proven utterly false. People are not just going to take your word for it. The scientists you choose as the ones we should listen to haven't proven their case that's why they are NOWHERE. This includes the top scientists in NASA and in East Anglia.

Before you talk about other people's pocketbooks you should invest in green technology yourself and take the risk instead of telling everyone else to. All that money flooding into those companies will mean more people will invest in them and when they don't find an adequate technology the economy will bust again.

Where did I say anything about guilt? You've been listening to too much Glenn.

Well when you mention that Republicans are only thinking about their pocketbook and that people shouldn't only think about their pocketbook you obviously are using the guilt argument but according to you it's a planet emergency.

BTW I don't have fox news. I sometimes see some videos here and there but I don't need Glenn Beck for the obvious.

Do you have any links about these green jobs where people just get paid to do nothing?

Are you dense???!!!!! When we pay taxes it goes to the government bodies and the corporate recipients of this money for being green. Also Wall Street firms will make money collecting fees for trading carbon units. The hope is that these companies will develop great things with this money while people working for cheap energy companies get laid off or bankrupt. While we wait for a panacea technology to appear the unemployment increases. That's really smart in a worldwide recession.

 

[BVS]

When it comes to trillions of dollars yes.

Interesting that you didn't need an absolute consensus on WMDs, very telling

It's not just backyard experiments. Plants are being positively affected by it already. (Why are tree rings getting bigger?)

But we're not just talking about plants.

Before you talk about other people's pocketbooks you should invest in green technology yourself and take the risk instead of telling everyone else to. All that money flooding into those companies will mean more people will invest in them and when they don't find an adequate technology the economy will bust again.

I have, and it's already saved me money.

Well when you mention that Republicans are only thinking about their pocketbook and that people shouldn't only think about their pocketbook you obviously are using the guilt argument but according to you it's a planet emergency.

You should become one of those clowns that make animal balloons at the circus, because you're awesome at twisting things.

Are you dense???!!!!! When we pay taxes it goes to the government bodies and the corporate recipients of this money for being green. Also Wall Street firms will make money collecting fees for trading carbon units. The hope is that these companies will develop great things with this money while people working for cheap energy companies get laid off or bankrupt. While we wait for a panacea technology to appear the unemployment increases. That's really smart in a worldwide recession.

So the answer is no. So this whole "green jobs where people get paid to do nothing" is just another conservative alinsky type talking point?