or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming Hysteria Building - Page 4

post #121 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

A quick look at the Energy and Environment homepage shows they do not care enough (read: they are highly unprofessional) about what they are trying to present to present it in good English, which leads me to question anything on their site.

I used to make very good money proof-reading scientific papers before publication, and this site would have made me rather rich. Real scientists care more about their work.

"...which in turned opened up new musical possibilities."

"so we have Oil Crisis."

From the latest E&E, and bound to be a classic in the AAGW community!

Facts and Three Questions Climate Alarmism Doing Politics with Climate Science the Combat Intensifies But There are Problems Science Debate Heats Up Fossil Fuel Policy Nuclear Highlights

By the Editor-in-Chief herself (Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen), no less!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #122 of 440
A good read covering the topic of the GW skeptics/contrarians/denialists;

GW contrarians

The site itself is also quite good, IMHO;

Climate

and finally from the same site, the MSM fair and balanced approach (Faux Noise);

Mediarology
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #123 of 440
I've heard people make the claim that scientists who believe that humans are contributing to gw are in it for the money [or something to that effect]. Last night, on the Colbert Report, Stephen mentioned that Exxon-Mobile funds the AEI. The AEI offered up $10g to anyone who wants to criticize the UN global warming study. Here's an article with the same info.

One has to wonder if the intentions of those scientists who don't believe human-caused gw are as genuine if they need to be bought off like this.
post #124 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

MaxParrish, I'm really getting tired of discussing the PC "detour." OK?

And we could play the "How many links can you post game."

For example, I believe for every single scientific peer reviewed you could provide I could provide a thousand. Or approximately a 1:1000 ratio, pro-anthrophomoric GW (PAGW) to anti-anthrophomoric GW (AAGW). So what?

You challenged me to provide information, I did. You claimed you only wanted to look at peer reviewed material, I provided it. Now you complain you are "tired" and have more papers you could cite...which is just a bit of unartful dodging. If you want an excellent run-down on the nature of this controversy in climate science, and remain open minded, then read it. If not, find reasons to carp...as you have.

Quote:
You have your POV and I have my POV. Until the AAGW people can prove their position beyond a reasonable doubt, and I don't see that happening, I remain convinced it's PAGW. If you can't do that, then at least post something other than M&M stuff, but remember it needs to be original research, scientific, and peer reviewed.

Why should I, its just another diversion...given your past behavior you will just find another excuse to avoid reading.
I've been quite patient with my student, but homework is homework - if you are more entertained by chaseing your rhetorical tail, well perhaps its best to cut you loose.
post #125 of 440
If skeptics can become denialists, can proponants become hoaxers?

Nick

"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 #126 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Unless you can show specificity WRT "conference invitations" it is ambigious, since I can claim being invited to hundreds of conferences myself, conferences by their nature are open to all interested parties, getting an email/mail about a conference isn't saying a whole lot.

I am not sure why it is necessary to repeat the same thing two or three times before it sinks in BUT once again, if you want to look at the title's of the conferences click on the papers - there is NOTHING ambigious about a title page. Really, can't you lift your finger and AT LEAST DO THAT, rather scrap the barrel of excuses for YET ANOTHER ratinale not to read a contraian paper? DO you need someone to strap you in a chair and spoon feed you ...shsssh? Good lord man, buck up and show some integrity - it won't hurt that much!

Quote:
good read covering the topic of the GW skeptics/contrarians/denialists;
GW contrarians
The site itself is also quite good, IMHO;
Climate
and finally from the same site, the MSM fair and balanced approach (Faux Noise);
Mediarology

LOL....well, no one can accuse you of being chutzpuh challenged! For many pages you demand information and cites, then cites for peer articles, then carp about too much information and it being non objective, and then you run like a scortched dog to suddenly turn round and shamelessly quote a pleathora of NON-PEERED, AXE GRINDING partisan websites like the above ...bark bark

Oh well, I...time to hose out the floors of the monkey cage...

First, E & E was an obscure peer reviewed journal published through a University - one of many thousands of peer reviewed journals in hudreds of displines that have very small readership and substantial subscription fees, nothing atypical in that. E & E was quite unnoticed untill it affronted the proxy Climate Science hockey team by publishing M & M in 2003 & 2005. Of course, as is typical of the community it lashed out not only at M & M with all sorts of false charges, but at anyone who published them (Mann even stooped to writing one journal to insist they not publish a prosective M & M article). That scores of other articles published as peer reviwed before (and since) were never thought to make the journal bogus was irrelevant - this affront to the insuler climate proxy establishement was too much!

Second, the journal was legit, enough to know it was (and is) citable by other scholars - virtually a concession of it's formal peer process. Unlike a popular journal which can be ignored, it demanded formal scholarly atttention and procedural replys.

Third, E & E continues as a scholarly press, M & M articles are cited in particular in the IPCC and NAS/NRC examinations and discussions, as well as their similar articles and replys to GRL. And it is taken seriously as a threat to open debate because:

"Boehmer-Christiansen “tries to give people who do not have a platform a platform,” says Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center (Germany). “This is then attractive for skeptic papers. They know they can come through...”

Because this obscure journal packs a powerful political impact,..."

Nuff said, add this third canard to the Wegman "not peer reviewed" and "Von Storch nonsense against the hocky stick" smear campaign...
Finally, the cage smells a bit better.
post #127 of 440
Thread Starter 
FrankS,

Wegman on his team's peer review of their peer review:

Testimony:

"Wegman: "Let me answer the question. Enders Robinson; Grace Wahba, who is a member of the National Academy; Noel Cressie, who is at Ohio State University; Bill Wieczorek, who is at Buffalo State University, SUNY; David Banks, who is at Duke University; Fritz Scheuren, who is the immediate past president of the American Statistical Association."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...nk&cd=20&gl=us

So did Von Storch attack the hockey stick as nonsense, of course not...

"Which brings me to the second point: Is the hockey stick curve crucially affected by Mann’s shoddiness? We tested it by way of a one-thousand-year simulation with a climatic model and found that the effect wasn’t significant. The error is real, but probably not far-reaching. Nevertheless, it is a good thing that the debate about the temperature history of the last millenium can be conducted again unconditionally. Steve McIntyre contributed substantially to this development; he deserves to be thanked for it."

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=127

Last point, you are mistaken regarding release of information from Mann and others on data, methods, etc.

First, much of this research was not a contract for services or goods, but research and modeling developed via a federal grants (e.g. NSF). Such information is public property, it is not funded to give academics proprietary methods and data, but to generate public research and pubic information to further science. Dr. Mann and his associates are not required to keep climate research secret, acutually they are expected to share it - naturally they have not claimed they are prevented from being transparent, only that they don't want to cooperate with others.

Last, a key element of the scientific method is to obtain experimental results, and then see if others can obtain the same results for verification. This happened in cold fusion, in economics, in biological sciences, etc. Climate science, however, does not like science so they embargo their methods, code, and data for as long as possible, refusing to post it. Unlike economics which requires ALL CODE AND DATA BE PUBLISHED, climate science plays "hide the data" to make it difficult to duplicate any claimed results. This is dishonest and inexcusable, especially for pulically funded work.

End.
post #128 of 440
Realized today that even messages from people on my ignore list get emailed to me if the thread is on my list, so I got the one about the teacher bit. Hmmm.... a teacher? Not a chance.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #129 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

You challenged me to provide information, I did. You claimed you only wanted to look at peer reviewed material, I provided it. Now you complain you are "tired" and have more papers you could cite...which is just a bit of unartful dodging. If you want an excellent run-down on the nature of this controversy in climate science, and remain open minded, then read it. If not, find reasons to carp...as you have.

Why should I, its just another diversion...given your past behavior you will just find another excuse to avoid reading.
I've been quite patient with my student, but homework is homework - if you are more entertained by chaseing your rhetorical tail, well perhaps its best to cut you loose.

Four points

1) The Wegman NAS report wasn't peer reviewed per your link, people who write the report don't get to select those who review the report, you need to understand how independent peer review works!

2) You stated thet M&M were invited to said conferences, said conferences are open to all interested parties, that's a given. BTW, almost all of your links don't work at my end! AFAIK, M&M were not uniquely singled out (i. e. given a unique one-of-a-kind special invitation) to give presentations at said conferences. So yes, of course M&M gave these presentations at said conferences, but M&M were not singled out to give these presentations at said conferences.

3) You clearly don't understand how the feds conduct their work through outside parties, contracts or grants are essentially the same as all argeements to do work for the feds, IP rights are maintained for all forms of work performed by outside parties. Getting raw data (but even this requires some arm twisting, the M&M situation is usually the rule for all raw data requests from the feds, so their situation is in no way unique) or furnished reports is fairly straight forward, getting source code is another matter entirely.

4) You obviosly can't recognize a sarcastic remark (RE: ClimateZenMaster). So you go ahead and post like 20+ links to M&M stuff. Obviously you are sold on their mindset, that is clear. I'm not, and no amount of brow beating by you will change that fact, thus the tired remark. I'm more interested in the entire PC community from their prespectives, not their prespectives filtered through the M&M prespective. Who gave M&M the final word on all things PC anyway?

Anyone who has followed this discussion now knows the truth about the denialists!

I've made my points, that is all!

Some advice, but I doubt you'll take it, it might do you some good to calm down just a little bit!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #130 of 440
How Global Warming end up on PoliticalOutsider forum.

There is really nothing to discuss. (1, 2) \
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #131 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Four points

1) The Wegman NAS report wasn't peer reviewed per your link, people who write the report don't get to select those who review the report, you need to understand how independent peer review works!

Nope - as I have said, you can't seem to get it. A last try to penetrate:

Peer review is a process that is followed in the publication of articles for either academic journals OR academic trade books. The customary process is that a prospective article be reviewed by 3 outside 'peer' qualified individuals who are known only to the journal (so as to protect them from criticism). After review, the comments are given to the prospective author, and the Journal editor decides if he/she wishes to publish the article (or requests some modification before publication.).

MBH (Mann, Briffa, Hughes) were peer reviewed and published.
M&M were peer reviewed and published (E&E and GRL).
These two sets of authors sparked a controversy. Other papers were peer reviewed and published on the subject.

NOW, the Congressional Committee asked NAS to put a panel together to address many scientific, procedural, and political questions. They asked, in particular that the papers at the core of the controversy be examined and reviewed, and the respective authors concerns addressed. ALSO, the chair of the Committee asked the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics to examine and review the the papers at the core of the controversy.

The NAS panel read them and (I believe) a sub-team ran some tests to examine robustness of methods.

The NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, and his team read them and ran even more extensive tests to examine them in even greater depth from the perspective of statistics.

Now that you know what and how peer review is used for journals, it should be obvious that these two groups would not normally be peer reviewed, nor does make much sense to expect it this context...THESE TWO GROUPS ARE, AFTER THE FACT, THE PEER REVIEWERS OF TWO STUDIES IN QUESTION. Their reports are NOT NEW peer-reviewed science for journals or books, they are ex post facto critical examinations for a political body seeking a professional opinions.

Ironically, while the NAS panel findings were not peer reviewed outside of its staff, the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, the Wegman Report, was given peer review.

Remember, the committee did not submit either report to a peer review before they were made public. However, unlike the NAS Panel, it so happens that Wegman and his team did consult with various statisticians prior to his final draft, he sent them copies, he did get feedback AND they had NO conflict of Interest with him (not as co-authors or friends). He also said that he would welcome any other independent exam of his results.

I think its abundantly clear to readers that one cannot shamelessly quote the NAS report AND then claim one must ignore anything that does not have peer-reviewed peer-reviews (itself a laughable concept). Moreover, that Wegman needlessly took it upon himself to have his work reviewed prior to publication is remarkable (and obviously, even if it were required, it is ludicrous to expect anyone to locate peer reviewers unknown to themselves...LOL).

The attack "It was not 'formally' peer reviewed" is more than disingenuous, its tawdry disinformation campaign by individuals without innate integrity. It is a partisan smear, aimed to excite the arm swinging, knuckle dragging, hooters that feel threatened by disssent...

The "ME no find a separate peer review of the NAS and Wegman peer reviews...hoot hoot"...is worth a laugh, but not much more. But hey, how about a peer review of a peer review of a peer review of a peer...

Quote:
2) You stated thet M&M were invited to said conferences, said conferences are open to all interested parties, that's a given.

Are you pretending to be obtuse or is this real? OBVIOUSLY they were invited to not only attend, but to make presentations. That's the whole friggen point SPORT.. PRESENTATIONS ARE SOLICITED AND REVIEWED BY ORGANIZERS FOR THE CONFERENCE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY AFTER BEING ACCEPTED FOR PRESENTATION, THEY ARE THEN PUBLISHED IN PROCEEDINGS? What do you think, people just go and do their own thing without permission>.... ...

Quote:
BTW, almost all of your links don't work at my end! AFAIK, M&M were not uniquely singled out (i. e. given a unique one-of-a-kind special invitation) to give presentations at said conferences. So yes, of course M&M gave these presentations at said conferences, but M&M were not singled out to give these presentations at said conferences.

Of course they were not the only ones invited.. who ever heard of a conference with a single presenter? Your so-called "points" are based on a lack of elementary knowledge the the rudiments of science culture, hopefully you will attend one or two to get an idea of how science works.

And, BTW, if the links don't work it is likely because of an INTERNET problem. Mine works just fine. Try again...

Quote:
3) You clearly don't understand how the feds conduct their work through outside parties, contracts or grants are essentially the same as all agreements to do work for the feds, IP rights are maintained for all forms of work performed by outside parties.

No it is YOU that clearly makes assumptions about NSF grants (and the like).

Quite aside from the fact that an IP right has nothing to do with revealing what the content of the IP developed is, lets cut to the core (NSF RULES):

Quote:
734 Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results

...Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants. Grantees are expected to encourage and facilitate such sharing. ,,, General adjustments and, where essential, exceptions to this sharing expectation may be specified by the funding NSF Program or Division for a particular field or discipline to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate the legitimate interest of investigators. A grantee or investigator also may request a particular adjustment or exception from the cognizant NSF Program Officer.

It is true that the NSF normally allows grantees to retain primely legal rights to prior intellectual property, or to inventions (intellectual or otherwise if they can be copywrited or patented) BUT such the granting of such incentives are the federal governments choice and " do not, however, reduce the responsibility that investigators and organizations have as members of the scientific and engineering community, to make results, data and collections available to other researchers."

But as I said, I have never heard Mann or others claim that they have anything in their computational methods, or statistical commands to off-the-shelf computer, is their intellectual property, let alone patentable or copyrighted. Given the wording of NSF rules and specific grants, it is certainly arguable if they are REQUIRED to disclose data, methods, or command codes BUT all that is quite beside the point...

THEY have the right and duty to release research methods and codes in sufficient detail so that others may exactly duplicate and test their findings. This is science, This is the recommended practice of the NAS and all science journals. This is the finding and recommendations of the NAS report. HOWEVER, this is not that attitude of Climate researchers who don't care - they are not protecting an invention, they are protecting their bogus claims from inspection.

That is why they cannot be trusted.
post #132 of 440
Pay no attention to those scientist behind the current, the Jury is out President George says meanwhile Exon is bribing scientist please please print some spin and truthiness even lies and well give you 10 grand. Republicans
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #133 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

There is really nothing to discuss.

So there's nothing to discuss because Greenpeace says New York is going to be submerged?

You guys are truly naive. This is turning out no different than the "Global Cooling" craze in the 70's we've talked about. A bonanza for advocacy organizations and scientific grant-dependents, a certified boondoggle for the taxpayer.
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 #134 of 440
i like your phrasology grant-dependents, soooo soooo true, it's a machine, you go after the grant money regardless of the subject matter, i was in academia and basically you look at the money first then fit what ever you are doing to get the bucks and it's all about chasing the dollars to keep your job income stable and get promotions. global warming has become this type of industry, fit the science to the grant request.

but science is usually self correcting, but global warmist's want to institutionalize this to perpetuate the machine, making it much more difficult for dessention and eventual truth. it's funny has any other scientific thought created such chaos, doom, crisis if immediate action is NOT taken, sound more like an impulse purchase sales pitch.....do this now to legitimize the science before people find out the truth.....but the real truth it's actully a facade against private ownership and capitalism.

the new excess of the west (it's all our fault) use corn to make ethanol, corn prices go up and poor people dependent on corn tortillas can't buy food. those evil industrialists soak more from the poor to keep their capitalist ways. it's another scam and to what end.....more taxes, more price increases, and more government
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #135 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

So there's nothing to discuss because Greenpeace says New York is going to be submerged?

That's correct. Based on all the available to me information, I trust Greenpeace more than shmocks in the White House, Senate, EPA, DOD, NSA, etc.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #136 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Nope - as I have said, you can't seem to get it. A last try to penetrate:

Peer review is a process that is followed in the publication of articles for either academic journals OR academic trade books. The customary process is that a prospective article be reviewed by 3 outside 'peer' qualified individuals who are known only to the journal (so as to protect them from criticism). After review, the comments are given to the prospective author, and the Journal editor decides if he/she wishes to publish the article (or requests some modification before publication.).

MBH (Mann, Briffa, Hughes) were peer reviewed and published.
M&M were peer reviewed and published (E&E and GRL).
These two sets of authors sparked a controversy. Other papers were peer reviewed and published on the subject.

NOW, the Congressional Committee asked NAS to put a panel together to address many scientific, procedural, and political questions. They asked, in particular that the papers at the core of the controversy be examined and reviewed, and the respective authors concerns addressed. ALSO, the chair of the Committee asked the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics to examine and review the the papers at the core of the controversy.

The NAS panel read them and (I believe) a sub-team ran some tests to examine robustness of methods.

The NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, and his team read them and ran even more extensive tests to examine them in even greater depth from the perspective of statistics.

Now that you know what and how peer review is used for journals, it should be obvious that these two groups would not normally be peer reviewed, nor does make much sense to expect it this context...THESE TWO GROUPS ARE, AFTER THE FACT, THE PEER REVIEWERS OF TWO STUDIES IN QUESTION. Their reports are NOT NEW peer-reviewed science for journals or books, they are ex post facto critical examinations for a political body seeking a professional opinions.

Ironically, while the NAS panel findings were not peer reviewed outside of its staff, the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, the Wegman Report, was given peer review.

Remember, the committee did not submit either report to a peer review before they were made public. However, unlike the NAS Panel, it so happens that Wegman and his team did consult with various statisticians prior to his final draft, he sent them copies, he did get feedback AND they had NO conflict of Interest with him (not as co-authors or friends). He also said that he would welcome any other independent exam of his results.

I think its abundantly clear to readers that one cannot shamelessly quote the NAS report AND then claim one must ignore anything that does not have peer-reviewed peer-reviews (itself a laughable concept). Moreover, that Wegman needlessly took it upon himself to have his work reviewed prior to publication is remarkable (and obviously, even if it were required, it is ludicrous to expect anyone to locate peer reviewers unknown to themselves...LOL).

The attack "It was not 'formally' peer reviewed" is more than disingenuous, its tawdry disinformation campaign by individuals without innate integrity. It is a partisan smear, aimed to excite the arm swinging, knuckle dragging, hooters that feel threatened by disssent...

The "ME no find a separate peer review of the NAS and Wegman peer reviews...hoot hoot"...is worth a laugh, but not much more. But hey, how about a peer review of a peer review of a peer review of a peer...

2) You stated thet M&M were invited to said conferences, said conferences are open to all interested parties, that's a given. [/qoute] Are you pretending to be obtuse or is this real? OBVIOUSLY they were invited to not only attend, but to make presentations. That's the whole friggen point SPORT.. PRESENTATIONS ARE SOLICITED AND REVIEWED BY ORGANIZERS FOR THE CONFERENCE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY AFTER BEING ACCEPTED FOR PRESENTATION, THEY ARE THEN PUBLISHED IN PROCEEDINGS? What do you think, people just go and do their own thing without permission>.... ...



Of course they were not the only ones invited.. who ever heard of a conference with a single presenter? Your so-called "points" are based on a lack of elementary knowledge the the rudiments of science culture, hopefully you will attend one or two to get an idea of how science works.

And, BTW, if the links don't work it is likely because of an INTERNET problem. Mine works just fine. Try again...

No it is YOU that clearly makes assumptions about NSF grants (and the like).

Quite aside from the fact that an IP right has nothing to do with revealing what the content of the IP developed is, lets cut to the core (NSF RULES):



It is true that the NSF normally allows grantees to retain primely legal rights to prior intellectual property, or to inventions (intellectual or otherwise if they can be copywrited or patented) BUT such the granting of such incentives are the federal governments choice and " do not, however, reduce the responsibility that investigators and organizations have as members of the scientific and engineering community, to make results, data and collections available to other researchers."

But as I said, I have never heard Mann or others claim that they have anything in their computational methods, or statistical commands to off-the-shelf computer, is their intellectual property, let alone patentable or copyrighted. Given the wording of NSF rules and specific grants, it is certainly arguable if they are REQUIRED to disclose data, methods, or command codes BUT all that is quite beside the point...

THEY have the right and duty to release research methods and codes in sufficient detail so that others may exactly duplicate and test their findings. This is science, This is the recommended practice of the NAS and all science journals. This is the finding and recommendations of the NAS report. HOWEVER, this is not that attitude of Climate researchers who don't care - they are not protecting an invention, they are protecting their bogus claims from inspection.

That is why they cannot be trusted.

I stand by my previous comments.

That is all.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #137 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I stand by my previous comments.

That is all.

In that case, let's note Mr. Gore's fun hysteria:

From Googled News the last 30 days:


"Never before has all of civilization been threatened," Gore said. "We have everything we need to save it, with the possible exception of political will."

"You (silicon valley) can chart the course and save the future of this civilization."

Gore called the increase in carbon dioxide levels that is linked to global warming a "crisis in the relationship between human civilization and planet earth.'' "We are now pressing against the limits of the earth's resources,'' Gore said.

"...few minutes later, he lowered his voice to a whisper, pleading with the audience to address a crisis that "could literally end all human civilization."
post #138 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

That's correct. Based on all the available to me information, I trust Greenpeace more than shmocks in the White House, Senate, EPA, DOD, NSA, etc.

Then I hope you're not typing your posts on a Mac, 'cause Greenpeace says those are really bad for you too.
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 #139 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Then I hope you're not typing your posts on a Mac, 'cause Greenpeace says those are really bad for you too.

Not "bad for you", but bad for the planet- for all of us.

Yes, I am using MA700LL/A.

I made sure to stress the importance of "greening my apple" to each and every Apple employee while shopping for the notebook though. At least two phone operators and two store clerks @ Manhattan store were briefed.

And if the situation doesn't improve by the time I need fresh boxes for my family, I may just go with a another brand.

I was also considering MacBooks for my company, but right now the project is on hold.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #140 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

Not "bad for you", but bad for the planet- for all of us.

Yes, I am using MA700LL/A.

I made sure to stress the importance of "greening my apple" to each and every Apple employee while shopping for the notebook though. At least two phone operators and two store clerks @ Manhattan store were briefed.

And if the situation doesn't improve by the time I need fresh boxes for my family, I may just go with a another brand.

I was also considering MacBooks for my company, but right now the project is on hold.

Hmmmm, didn't the founder of Greenpeace leave, suggesting they had turned into kooks, crazies, nuts, whakos, fruitcakes, and the like?
post #141 of 440
Did he say that? Specifically, kooks, crazies, nuts, whakos, fruitcakes, and the like. I don't recall him using emotional terms like that.

But it's good to know that you think of your fellow Americans who want to protect the planet as fruitcakes. A small peek inside your beautiful mind.

Because somehow I doubt you'd let that kind of shit fly when it's hurled at you and your idealogues.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #142 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Did he say that? Specifically, kooks, crazies, nuts, whakos, fruitcakes, and the like. I don't recall him using emotional terms like that.

But it's good to know that you think of your fellow Americans who want to protect the planet as fruitcakes. A small peek inside your beautiful mind.

Because somehow I doubt you'd let that kind of shit fly when it's hurled at you and your idealogues.

Hey, I was jus' askin...maybe he said extremists, fanatics, true believers, looneys, wierdos, grifters, or con-artists...I just can't quite recall the exact words...
post #143 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Did he say that? Specifically, kooks, crazies, nuts, whakos, fruitcakes, and the like. I don't recall him using emotional terms like that.

But it's good to know that you think of your fellow Americans who want to protect the planet as fruitcakes. A small peek inside your beautiful mind.

Because somehow I doubt you'd let that kind of shit fly when it's hurled at you and your idealogues.

Oh...here is some of what he has said:

Quote:
"Environmental extremists are basically anti-human," Patrick Moore told members of the USA Rice Federation on the final day of its conference in Little Rock. "Humans are characterized as a cancer on the Earth."

An uncritical news media, he also charged, reports much of what organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund offer as fact without checking its validity.

Moore was among the founding members of Greenpeace in the early 1970s and eventually became its international director. Yet in the 1980s, Moore said, he grew weary of confrontation and became more interested in consensus building. "I had been against three or four things every day of my life," said Moore. "I decided I'd like to be for some things."

The movement he was part of didn't follow, Moore told his audience. Instead, he said, when the environmental movement gained a degree of acceptance, many of its members became more radical, unable or unwilling to let go of confrontation as a way of life. With the end of the Cold War, Moore told the crowd, peace activists also found themselves looking for a new cause and latched on. The environmental movement has largely become antibusiness and anti-trade, according to Moore, adhering to a "utopian dream" that the world's population can feed itself from small organic gardens.

..."If [environmentalists] destroy the market for wood, which they're trying to do," Moore said, "those people will cut the trees down and grow something else instead."

Sebree said he envied the ability, as Moore described it, of environmental groups to generate news coverage. "When you have a national organization that is against something, [and] that is really big-time like Greenpeace they get coverage."
post #144 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Hmmmm, didn't the founder of Greenpeace leave, suggesting they had turned into kooks, crazies, nuts, whakos, fruitcakes, and the like?

Greenpeace protects our planet, while the government takes our tax dollars, converts them into bombs, and drops the on heads of innocent people around the world.

I stand by my original preference.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #145 of 440
Actually Greenpeace has become TOO political for my tastes.. It has allied with the religious right in Europe against scientific progress, and that is the death knell for any organization from my perspective...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #146 of 440
Let's just clarify something ...

To everyone here who is opposing Earth preservation, including the thread originator:

Which of the following is true:

a. Global Warming is a hoax.
b. I am trying to cash in on fossil fuels.
c. I am a Financial major.
d. Après nous le déluge.
e. I believe in Hollywood endings.

Thank you.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #147 of 440
Thread Starter 
To everyone here who is opposing Earth preservation, including the thread originator:

Which of the following is true:

a. Global Warming is a looting opportunity.
b. I am trying to get a gramt or sell a soybean powered yugo.
c. I am a enviromental major.
d. I don't care if it floods, I'll get reimbursed by government.
e. I believe I and my kids won't live long enough to care.

Your Welcome
post #148 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

To everyone here who is opposing Earth preservation...

And there you have it. Anyone who doubts the Kyoto hysteria is opposed to preserving life on Earth.

"You are with us or against us." - George W. Bush
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 #149 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

Actually Greenpeace has become TOO political for my tastes.. It has allied with the religious right in Europe against scientific progress, and that is the death knell for any organization from my perspective...

This is the first I've heard of Greenpeace allying themselves with the "religious right" in any way.
Do you have a link?
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 #150 of 440
Frank, check out the German branch of Greenpeace's position on stem cells...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #151 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

To everyone here who is opposing Earth preservation, including the thread originator:

Which of the following is true:

a. Global Warming is a looting opportunity.
b. I am trying to get a gramt or sell a soybean powered yugo.
c. I am a enviromental major.
d. I don't care if it floods, I'll get reimbursed by government.
e. I believe I and my kids won't live long enough to care.

Your Welcome

With that set of questions I was trying to understand your position, so we can actually discuss something. But you are just plying monkey here. And monkeys usually end up on the ignore list. No banana for you.
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
MA700LL/A arrived.
---
Latitude D600, PowerEdge 1600SC, OptiPlex GX520
Reply
post #152 of 440
BTW, when someone chimes in that they can't understand why people believe there is any wrong intent to global warming, no possible political repurcussions related to endorsing and advancing it just point them at these articles as a start.

no flowers for you

fast ass

You can see that to "save the planet" they can find some justification to control, condemn or attempt to legislate any and all aspects of our lives. The authoritarian fascists believe that nothing can have a greater stake than the planet and so every right and liberty must fall before the desire to save it.

Please keep that in mind the next time someone claims global warming and the endorsement of it is only "pure" in its beliefs and intentions and there can be no alterior motive.

Nick

"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 #153 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by 100mph View Post

With that set of questions I was trying to understand your position, so we can actually discuss something. But you are just plying monkey here. And monkeys usually end up on the ignore list. No banana for you.

That's funny. His set of questions makes more sense than yours.
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 #154 of 440
gee global warming takes it's toll......on credibility

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/0...336-9529R.html

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET


doom and gloom and let's blame america first

oooooohhhh yes we have only 10 years to fix it, but we don't know what to do and it's ir-reversible. yea right.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #155 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

BTW, when someone chimes in that they can't understand why people believe there is any wrong intent to global warming, no possible political repurcussions related to endorsing and advancing it just point them at these articles as a start.

no flowers for you

fast ass

You can see that to "save the planet" they can find some justification to control, condemn or attempt to legislate any and all aspects of our lives. The authoritarian fascists believe that nothing can have a greater stake than the planet and so every right and liberty must fall before the desire to save it.

Please keep that in mind the next time someone claims global warming and the endorsement of it is only "pure" in its beliefs and intentions and there can be no alterior motive.

Nick


Sounds like GW acknowledgers want to start a religion in your view.

1) Thou shall not stink more than necessary.
2) Thou shall not waste thy cash on terror and making other nations richer than necessary.
3) Thou shall live even healthier lives.
4) Thy kids shall not have asthma at age 9.
5) Thou shall keep dead things in the ground, there is a reason for dead things to be in the ground (if you're too dumm, I mean oil, you wouldn't put your granny in the tank either)
6) Hummer should only be a word for "erection")
7) Oxygen is important.
post #156 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Sounds like GW acknowledgers want to start a religion in your view.

1) Thou shall not stink more than necessary.
2) Thou shall not waste thy cash on terror and making other nations richer than necessary.
3) Thou shall live even healthier lives.
4) Thy kids shall not have asthma at age 9.
5) Thou shall keep dead things in the ground, there is a reason for dead things to be in the ground (if you're too dumm, I mean oil, you wouldn't put your granny in the tank either)
6) Hummer should only be a word for "erection")
7) Oxygen is important.

you forgot
we shall blame america first, we are the reason for all ills.
we shall accept consensus as "science"
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #157 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

you forgot
we shall blame america first, we are the reason for all ills.
we shall accept consensus as "science"

You can make up your own commandments mine are complete and need no additions.
post #158 of 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxParrish View Post

Because once the boogyman of global warming becomes the new hobgoblin, then it will be used as a trogen horse to limit all sorts of personal liberties.

As opposed to terrorism, communism, gays, liberals and the French?
Sometimes I hope you guys do this to have a fun night on a messag board, and don't think anything you say is actually serious.
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #159 of 440
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpcMs View Post

As opposed to terrorism, communism, gays, liberals and the French?
Sometimes I hope you guys do this to have a fun night on a message board, and don't think anything you say is actually serious.

The people of this country spend a lot of time moving rocks for the government without providing for themselves and their long-term security. Sometimes they move a little more, sometimes a little less, but as a general rule its on the upslope. It has been nearly a law of government for 60 or more years.

People don't always notice it, after all, as long as their standard of living improves they tend to overlook their increasing burden in taxes and regulations. To borrow from the global warmers: like a frog in a pot of water on a low flame, a gradual increase is unnoticed until the frog dies. The only time people get really upset is when someone turns up the flame too fast (e.g. Carter), and the future is delivered too quickly.

Global Warming hysteria is part of that future. Out of control immigration is another part. So is a huge new entitlement burden in Social Security and Medicare. So will be indifferent government health care and eventually. like Europe, 10% unemployment. Expect more laws, more lawyers, more suits, more "rights" being demanded, more grievance group politics, less recreational lands, greater income inequalities.

Don't expect more independent energy, more nuclear power, opening of federal lands to oil or resource development, fewer people, less crowded freeways, or better quality medical care. Don't expect a lower tax burdon, teachers teaching in the Universities, better Public Education, or even a measurable return on education. Don't anticipate government becoming more efficient or less bureaucratic - it will get worse before it gets better.

So global warming hysterics is just one new part of adding more rocks, only this time the "benefit" won't be seen (if at all) for 50 to 100 years - but hey, pile it on, right?
post #160 of 440
warmest january ever.

No it's not true all the thermometers are conspiring against god. I would believe it if George W. Bush would have measured it himself because he is close to god. The world is preparing for the coming of Christ. He likes it warm.
I am building a big boat.
My lobotomy didn't hurt at all.

SDW3002
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global Warming Hysteria Building