or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 75

post #2961 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ooh, astronomer Phil Plait just made a post[/URL] about this fabricated, bullshit scandal. He even uses the same phrase I did in his title! I feel special.

Many excellent links to plenty of sources backing up his statements are littered throughout the post so it's worth clicking on the link above and reading it there.

I went and looked at the statement and many of the links. To be succinct, repeating yourself and killing the messenger doesn't prove anything.

Quote:
Two years ago, someone hacked into a University of East Anglia server and anonymously posted thousands of emails from climate scientists. Quickly dubbed "Climategate", global warming deniers jumped on this, trying to show that these scientists were engaging in fraudulent activities. However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

This is an outright lie. They were found to be substituting data sets. They were found to be deleting emails and ignoring Freedom of Information requests.

Quote:
I wrote about this when it happened and then again quickly thereafter, showing this was just noise. Accusations of fraud were leveled at climate scientist Michael Mann, but time and again he was exonerated: like this time, and then this time, and then this time, and of course this time, and then my favorite, this time.

A column declaring the requests can be ignored because they are abuse.
The UEA commissioned several panels and the panels found the result that said nothing at UEA was wrong. Interesting wording with DELIBERATE malpractice.

A column linking to prior columns as proof doesn't prove much.

Quote:
Climategate was widely denounced as a manufactured controversy, except, of course, by denialists. Because they denied it. Thats axiomatic.

There's no proof the public at large declared this to be so.

The rest is more rehash and more all the skeptical people are evil and bad.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2962 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Climategate 2.0: the not nice and clueless Phil Jones

The man admits he doesn't even know his way around a spreadsheet. Brilliant.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2963 of 3039
FORBES.com

I'm sure the article rehashes several issues already presented here but this one really struck me as interesting.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

Apparently it is good science to find someone within the Liberal Media Complex to do a hit piece on someone you think is bugging you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2964 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You honestly think the motivation of 'the other side' isn't financial?



No, wait...


What you refuse to acknowledge is YOUR SIDE has just as much financial motivation, if not more. It's just a different type of finance, from tax dollars to research grants, to global wealth and power redistribution.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2965 of 3039
BR, your "I can't hear you" image is so unbelievably hypocritical and ironic. It doesn't matter how much information comes out showing that the planet isn't warming significantly, or that C02 doesn't cause warming, or that storm intensity and frequency is not increasing, or that certain global warming enthusiasts have questionable motives and conflicts of interest, or that certain scientists are LYING AND MANIPULATING DATA.

None of it matters. "Lalalalala---I can't hear you," you say. "You're all retarded deniers, or corrupt, or brainwashed, or fucking retarded," you say. And so it goes.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2966 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

BR, your "I can't hear you" image is so unbelievably hypocritical and ironic. It doesn't matter how much information comes out showing that the planet isn't warming significantly, or that C02 doesn't cause warming, or that storm intensity and frequency is not increasing, or that certain global warming enthusiasts have questionable motives and conflicts of interest, or that certain scientists are LYING AND MANIPULATING DATA.

None of it matters. "Lalalalala---I can't hear you," you say. "You're all retarded deniers, or corrupt, or brainwashed, or fucking retarded," you say. And so it goes.

But that's exactly the truth, SDW, it's you who have been brainwashed.

I'll use your own words... and add the truth to it.

It doesn't matter how much information comes out showing that the planet isn't warming significantly, or that C02 doesn't cause warming, or that storm intensity and frequency is not increasing, or that certain global warming enthusiasts have questionable motives and conflicts of interest, or that certain scientists are LYING AND MANIPULATING DATA, when there is a thousand times more evidence that human activity is in fact causing global warming, and that the mountain of evidence is on the side that we can make a difference by reducing emissions.

It really doesn't fucking matter to you. The truth. It really doesn't matter to you when you are concentrating so hard on distracting people with the overwhelmingly debunked and almost unanimously among qualified scientists unrecognized message of the deniers.

When 95% of qualified scientists agree, and we agree with those 95%, and disagree with the 5%, you can't possibly say that we're the ones ignoring the data. Seriously. That's retarded.
post #2967 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What you refuse to acknowledge is YOUR SIDE has just as much financial motivation, if not more. It's just a different type of finance, from tax dollars to research grants, to global wealth and power redistribution.

Exactly. If a thinktank has millions, the government funding all this research has billions. It isn't even close but certain closed minds don't ever assign the government an agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But that's exactly the truth, SDW, it's you who have been brainwashed.

I'll use your own words... and add the truth to it.

It doesn't matter how much information comes out showing that the planet isn't warming significantly, or that C02 doesn't cause warming, or that storm intensity and frequency is not increasing, or that certain global warming enthusiasts have questionable motives and conflicts of interest, or that certain scientists are LYING AND MANIPULATING DATA, when there is a thousand times more evidence that human activity is in fact causing global warming, and that the mountain of evidence is on the side that we can make a difference by reducing emissions.

It really doesn't fucking matter to you. The truth. It really doesn't matter to you when you are concentrating so hard on distracting people with the overwhelmingly debunked and almost unanimously among qualified scientists unrecognized message of the deniers.

When 95% of qualified scientists agree, and we agree with those 95%, and disagree with the 5%, you can't possibly say that we're the ones ignoring the data. Seriously. That's retarded.

Actually yes he can say that. Science is never determined by consensus. It is determined by the objective results. It seeks objective, not internal truth. It could be 99.99999% against it and if that one scientist finds the missing piece to the puzzle all the prior research, understanding and people are wrong.

That's supposed to be the great thing about science. It is supposed to be self correcting and not subject to majorities, dogma or anything else. It is supposed to answer only to results. Right now all the models out there have NOT been predictive. That means they are wrong. It means there are some variables missing or unaccounted for and of course when discovered they could completely alter the outcomes of the models. Until then it is a debate. Until then it doesn't matter what percentages believe which model will be most accurate or which believe none of them are accurate.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2968 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But that's exactly the truth, SDW, it's you who have been brainwashed.

I'll use your own words... and add the truth to it.
....

when there is a thousand times more evidence that human activity is in fact causing global warming, and that the mountain of evidence is on the side that we can make a difference by reducing emissions.

Neither is true. The climate is not warming significantly, if at all. C02 has not been shown to cause warming...at all. And even if the problem DID exist, we'd have to eliminate virtually ALL emissions to begin to make a difference. That is impossible, and I think you know it.

Quote:

It really doesn't fucking matter to you. The truth. It really doesn't matter to you when you are concentrating so hard on distracting people with the overwhelmingly debunked and almost unanimously among qualified scientists unrecognized message of the deniers.

Let me post this again. Read slowly to increase your chance of comprehending. Despite all your obfuscating, whining, crying, insulting, etc:

1) The planet is not warming significantly...particularly in that last 15 years.

2) C02 has NOT been shown to cause warming.



Quote:
When 95% of qualified scientists agree, and we agree with those 95%, and disagree with the 5%, you can't possibly say that we're the ones ignoring the data. Seriously. That's retarded.

You are saying that 95% of qualified scientists agree that manmade AGW exists and that C02 causes warming? I'd love to see some reliable data on that. And I've love to see how you define "qualified scientist."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2969 of 3039
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The data is all there. You just refuse to look at it or accept it.


Refresh my memory...those of you who think AGW is a hoax...what's your stance on the validity of the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2970 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Exactly. If a thinktank has millions, the government funding all this research has billions. It isn't even close but certain closed minds don't ever assign the government an agenda.



Actually yes he can say that. Science is never determined by consensus. It is determined by the objective results. It seeks objective, not internal truth. It could be 99.99999% against it and if that one scientist finds the missing piece to the puzzle all the prior research, understanding and people are wrong.

That's supposed to be the great thing about science. It is supposed to be self correcting and not subject to majorities, dogma or anything else. It is supposed to answer only to results. Right now all the models out there have NOT been predictive. That means they are wrong. It means there are some variables missing or unaccounted for and of course when discovered they could completely alter the outcomes of the models. Until then it is a debate. Until then it doesn't matter what percentages believe which model will be most accurate or which believe none of them are accurate.

So what are the honsst, recognized objective results, that are generally accepted by the unbiased scientific community? Don't lie. We'll know if you're lying.
post #2971 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The data is all there. You just refuse to look at it or accept it.


Refresh my memory...those of you who think AGW is a hoax...what's your stance on the validity of the Scientific Theory of Evolution?

Translation, since I'm getting my ass handed to me on this climate stuff, let's switch to a different topic that plays to my biases and lets me find entirely new reasons to personally attack and insult you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So what are the honsst, recognized objective results, that are generally accepted by the unbiased scientific community? Don't lie. We'll know if you're lying.

First there's no such thing as an unbiased scientific community. All humans have bias and that includes all scientists. Climate science is at best a proto-science. It isn't predictive. There are no formulas that can guarantee a result within some margin of error at some future time. It is all very broad hypotheticals. It works by means of proxies and the proxies themselves are often proxies for yet something else.

Example: We don't have record weather for 10,000 years ago. Well do we have someone that recorded something similar to the temperature for 10,000 years ago? No. So what can we do then? Well let's use tree rings. Do the tree rings tell us the temperature? No, but their width can tell us the amount of precipitation and we can attempt to link precipitation to temperature. If there was little rain, we will assume it was warmer during that year. When the proxies fall apart, they substitute one proxy for another.

Is this still science, sure but you treat it like a hard science, like chemistry and physics instead of a soft science like anthropology. If someone comes along and tells me they've discovered something new or different about Alexander the Great, that is interesting. It can be debated. It makes for interesting discussion. That isn't the same as asking me to alter my entire life for me and my children based off what you think tree rings tell you about weather from 100,000 years ago.

Hard sciences often have areas that are completely settled. It is no longer theoretical. The areas that are theoretical are hotly disputed. The Higgs boson particle for example might have a strong majority supporting the claim that it exists while a vocal minority does not believe it exists. The difference between this and climate science, no one wants to tax me or alter my lifestyle due to the Higgs boson particle.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2972 of 3039
Thread Starter 
An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA*CRU

Too long to post in its entirety, but here's an excerpt:

Quote:
Now, Ive come to accept that you lied to me. Heres what I think. I think you are a scientist, and a reasonably good one, who was hard squeezed by two thingsthe Peter Principle, and Noble Cause Corruption. When you began your scientific career, your sloppy record keeping didnt matter much. And you didnt want to be the record keeper in any case, you wanted to do the science instead, but you kept getting promoted and you ended up curating*a big messy dataset. Then things changed, and now, climate decisions involving billions of dollars are being made based in part on your data. Disarray in your files didnt make a lot of difference when your work was of interest*only*to specialists. But now it matters greatly, money and peoples lives are at stake, and unfortunately you were a better scientist than you were a data manager.

So when my FOI request came along, you were caught. You were legally required to produce data you couldnt locate. Rather than tell the truth and say I cant find it, you chose to lie. Hey, it was only a small lie, and it was for the Noble Cause of saving the world from Thermageddon. So you had David tell me the data was available on the web. You knew that was a lie. David, apparently, didnt realize it was a lie, at least at first. You hoped your Noble Lie would satisfy me, that I would get discouraged, and you could move on.

But I asked again, and when I called you on that first answer, you thought up another Noble Lie. And when that one didnt work, you invented another Noble Lie.

OK, so you are a serial liar. Like I said, Ive made my peace with that. It used to rankle me, but not any more. I just accepted that you cant be trusted and I moved on. I do have compassion for you, Dr. Jones. None of you guys set out to do the ugly things you ended up doing. You all got caught by Noble Cause Corruption, by the vision of being smarter than everyone else and of being the only people standing between us and global destruction. Its heady, treacherous stuff.

I have been a victim of that same self-delusion myself. I understand the sweet seduction that arises from the conviction that your mission is of vital, crucial importance to the whole planet. However, I quit that kind of nonsense around the time the sixties wound down but again I digress. I have compassion for your position, and I was, although not satisfied, at least at ease with the outcome.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2973 of 3039
This is fantastically written and incredibly concise.

The nail in the coffin.

Quote:
While some of the email scientists were partisan, panels have cleared them of practising corrupt science. All the emails have shown is that scientists are no less prone to vanity, rivalries and corner-cutting than people in other walks of life.

But that is everything. Voters in a democracy do not argue about science. They argue about the authority of scientists. And scientists claim to authority comes from the perception that, in fact, they do not let their vanities and rivalries influence their work. Where others pursue their grubby little self-interest, scientists pursue only the truth. The emails of 2009, however, showed that some prominent members of the climate-change establishment were not operating in a spirit of openness. Defending a scientists furtiveness on the grounds that his science is good is like defending a politicians blunder on the grounds that he did nothing illegal. The emails were damaging because they undermined the scientists claim to be speaking as scientists rather than as interested parties.

If the UEA scientists act no differently than a supposedly greedy oil man, who it is claimed will say or do anything to get the money and authorizations necessary to advance their aims, then they no longer have any authority. They have no moral high ground.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2974 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is fantastically written and incredibly concise.

The nail in the coffin.



If the UEA scientists act no differently than a supposedly greedy oil man, who it is claimed will say or do anything to get the money and authorizations necessary to advance their aims, then they no longer have any authority. They have no moral high ground.

But they have data, that can be scrutinized and verified. And in general (not 100%), it is. It's not a bunch of people saying "this data is correct". It's a bunch of people showing that the data is correct.
post #2975 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But they have data, that can be scrutinized and verified. And in general (not 100%), it is. It's not a bunch of people saying "this data is correct". It's a bunch of people showing that the data is correct.

No they don't. You should read Jazzy's link right before my link. It goes into the history and back and forth related to just one request for the data. In short, this work cannot be reviewed and recreated to be checked.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2976 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

No they don't. You should read Jazzy's link right before my link. It goes into the history and back and forth related to just one request for the data. In short, this work cannot be reviewed and recreated to be checked.

But mountains of other work can, and is, regularly. That's what you're ignoring, and trying to distract people from.
post #2977 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But mountains of other work can, and is, regularly. That's what you're ignoring, and trying to distract people from.

Actually what you are failing to realize is how often these same sets of data are used. I can tell you haven't read that link yet. You're basically making me repeat info you should have already read. The point was and is that these "scientists" are also lobbying and making sure critical papers don't get published. If they don't get published, it's like they didn't happen. If a critical analysis of the same data happens and they are pushing to squash it.

You seem to forget that these emails spoke of boycotting certain journals, stacking the lists of referees and reviewers for said journals, etc. They are acting as gatekeepers making sure critical research doesn't get published.

In otherwords, again they are undertaking actions that stink of politics instead of science.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2978 of 3039
10 reasons for Climategate 3.0-

1) Email says "There's been no warming all week, still got the heating on full here at hq".

2) Al Gore bought an electic Ferrari.

3) Al Gore bought an electric Aston Martin.

4) An email confirms gw bias against a famous skeptic, "That guys a fucking asshole, don't waste any more time on that shit".

5) Al Gore installs solar powered attic cooling fans.

6) Email reveals, "We can't hide the decline in temperatures whilst wearing scarfs"

7) Al Gore orders extra set of solar roof panels.

8) Al Gore buys another ocean front property.

9) Funding for the study of Arctic ice shelf loss takes precedent over funding of ice cream shelf.

10) Al Gore buys an electric train set.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2979 of 3039
It's not at all surprising that wikileaks was praised by the left of a triumph of information freedom over government secrecy and Climategate as a betrayal basic tenants of privacy.
post #2980 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

It's not at all surprising that wikileaks was praised by the left of a triumph of information freedom over government secrecy and Climategate as a betrayal basic tenants of privacy.

Can you show that? I haven't seen anyone on the left on these boards call this an invasion of privacy. What it is is a red herring intended to distract from the truth about climate change.
post #2981 of 3039
Thread Starter 
The so-called "truth" about climate change has been based largely on "research" that has come out of the UEA. Thanks to these emails, we now know that even the so-called "consensus" has doubts that have been intentionally hidden from us because it would damage a specific political agenda.

Skepticism is at the very heart of science. To be a scientist is to be a skeptic.

What we see here is intentional and blatant lying, misdirection, collusion, manipulation of information, and cronyism. It is now plain for all to see. This is not science.

I am not saying that nobody on the "other side" of the argument engages in the same tactics. What I am saying, however, is the credibility of the so-called "consensus" has been irreparably damaged.

And the irony is, it hasn't been damaged by deception on the part of the "other side". It's been damaged by the truth.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2982 of 3039
Thread Starter 
BBC sought advice from global warming scientists on economy, drama, music... and even game shows

Quote:
Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves, a vast new cache of leaked ‘Climategate’ emails has revealed.

The emails – part of a trove of more than 5,200 messages that appear to have been stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia – shed light for the first time on an incestuous web of interlocking relationships between BBC journalists and the university’s scientists, which goes back more than a decade.

They show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.

Click on the link for full article.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2983 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Another journalistic scandal -- so where's the outrage?

Excerpt:

Quote:
Just imagine if, hypothetically, it had been revealed that the BBC had been quietly paid by the oil industry to shoot down AGW theory through sponsored seminars, vetted scripts and the exclusion of green activists from the airwaves. Or that it had been paid to promote in similar fashion the agenda of American neoconservatives, or bankers and hedge-fund managers, or UKIP, and correspondingly keep critics of the neocons, bankers or UKIP off the air. Does anyone think that following such revelations not one word would be published elsewhere – or would there be absolute uproar?

Merely to pose the question is to realise just how complete is the rout.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2984 of 3039
Thread Starter 
The Great Global Warming Fizzle

Quote:
How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with.

Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.

That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.

The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.

Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.

And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2985 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Where are the hurricanes?

Quote:
Sunday will be the 2,232nd consecutive day that the U.S. has gone without being hit by a major hurricane. This is a big enough deal to be covered by the mainstream media. But of course it won't be.

On Dec. 4, a new record will be set for the number of days between landfalls of category 3 or stronger storms. The previous streak, according to Roger Pielke Jr., began on Sept. 8, 1900, and ended on Oct. 19, 1906, when the Great Galveston Hurricane hit.

The record won't be broken by just a day or even a week. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at University of Colorado, says it will be crushed.

"Since there won't be any intense hurricanes before next summer, the record will be shattered, with the days between intense hurricane landfalls likely to exceed 2,500 days," he writes in his blog.

Why is this significant? Because the global warming alarmists have been telling us that man's carbon dioxide emissions would bring bigger storms.

Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology promoted the idea in a 2005 paper. He claimed that in the mid-1970s global warming began causing hurricane destruction to increase. Emanuel believed that the damage would grow worse.

Al Gore, the kaiser of the alarmists, picked up on the notion and, as he is wont to do, lectured the public as if he were both an expert and a moral superior.

In "An Inconvenient Truth," he rants about an "emerging consensus" that links "global warming to increasingly destructive power of hurricanes, increasing the strength of the average hurricane a full half-step on the well-known 5-step scale."

The National Wildlife Federation — of course — has also fanned the hysteria. It was happy to report on "the latest science" which connects "hurricanes and global warming" and "suggests more is yet to come."

"Tropical storms are likely to bring higher wind speeds, more precipitation, and a bigger storm surge in the coming decades," said the NWF.

The mainstream media has happily trafficked this nonsense, but it's not likely to mention Pielke's point even though it would be appropriate in stories covering our very mild hurricane season, which ended Wednesday.

Why won't they do it? Because it's inconsistent with their narrative. It's like the latest batch of Climategate emails, which show again a group of scientists manipulating the process for political gain. News that contradicts the alarmists' tale simply isn't news to the media.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2986 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Where are the hurricanes?

Looks like another "Inconvenient Truth"...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #2987 of 3039
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #2988 of 3039

Just saw this....here's a better (though much more inflammatory) link.

http://www.infowars.com/un-calls-for...durban-summit/
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2989 of 3039
Thread Starter 
BBC Caught Faking Polar Bear Footage re Climate Alarmism

Quote:
As if the climate alarmist scams revealed in Climategate I and Climategate II were not enough, not to mention the deliberate misrepresentations in Al Gore’s propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, we now learn that the BBC faked a key scene in the £16 million, seven-part TV series, Frozen Planet, in which polar bears were being depicted as endangered as a result of global warming. Hosted by alarmist Sir David Attenborough, the series has had viewership of 8 million who were led to believe that the footage was taken in the wild, when all along it was staged in a zoo with fake snow. Attenborough refused to apologize for not disclosing the deception, claiming that the documentary is no different from movies: “Come on, we were making movies.” Apparently, for Sir David there is no difference between fiction and fact.

Political activism masquerading as science? Shocking.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2990 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

BBC Caught Faking Polar Bear Footage re Climate Alarmism



Political activism masquerading as science? Shocking.

OUCH! Nice find!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2991 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Where are the hurricanes?

Hurricane predictors admit they can’t predict hurricanes, quit the practice

Quote:
Two top U.S. hurricane forecasters, revered like rock stars in Deep South hurricane country, are quitting the practice because it doesn’t work.

William Gray and Phil Klotzbach say a look back shows their past 20 years of forecasts had no value.

The two scientists from Colorado State University will still discuss different probabilities as hurricane seasons approach — a much more cautious approach. But the shift signals how far humans are, even with supercomputers, from truly knowing what our weather will do next.

Gray, recently joined by Klotzbach, has been known for decades for an annual forecast of how many hurricanes can be expected each official hurricane season (which runs from June to November.) Southerners hang on his words, as even a mid-sized hurricane can cause billions in damage.

Last week, the pair dropped this announcement out of a clear, blue sky:

“We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year ... Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill.”

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2992 of 3039
You come here, you pay here. The US and China had better get with it. I'm sick of their GW emissions -


"China's four leading airlines have thrown down the gauntlet to the European Union by saying they will refuse to pay carbon charges levied under Europe's emissions trading scheme.

China is not alone in its opposition. The US has also warned that it may retaliate and US Congressmen have drafted a bill that would make it illegal to comply with the EU policy. Qantas Airways of Australia has threatened to sue.

But other Asian airlines were more amenable to the system. Cathay Pacific — which is based in Hong Kong — and Singapore Airlines have said they would either offset the costs by improving efficiency or pass on the charge to customers."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-eu-carbon-tax
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2993 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Europe needs to get money from somewhere. Might as well scam other countries in the name of "fighting global warming".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2994 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Europe needs to get money from somewhere. Might as well scam other countries in the name of "fighting global warming".

China and the US excuses for action will be their downfall. You watch.

Have you ever thought about your sig in relation to GW?

"Freedom is a condition in which a person's ownership rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not aggressed against." - Murray N. Rothbard"
~ jazzguru sig
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2995 of 3039
Jazzguru doesn't believe in science.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2996 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Have you ever thought about your sig in relation to GW?

Of course. It's quite apparent that the global warming movement is in direct opposition to the very definition of freedom.

The movement is championed by those who believe it is the government's role to "protect people from themselves" by the use of force and aggression against their persons and property.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2997 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Of course. It's quite apparent that the global warming movement is in direct opposition to the very definition of freedom.

The movement is championed by those who believe it is the government's role to "protect people from themselves" by the use of force and aggression against their persons and property.


Your a drug addict. As Bush said "addicted to oil", addicted to fossil fuels...and you know what happens to drug addicts.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #2998 of 3039
Yup, the polluters are just exercising their property freedoms to nonforcibly and nonaggressively destroy the environment.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2999 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Your a drug addict. As Bush said "addicted to oil", addicted to fossil fuels...and you know what happens to drug addicts.

I would happily use alternative fuels and electric cars if they were cheap, efficient, safe, and stable.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3000 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Jazzguru doesn't believe in science.

I think he doesn't know how.
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate