AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
You haven't debunked anything. You're just making an idiot of yourself. There is nothing to debunk. I am not cherry picking anything. I am clearly denying the credibility of the science on either side of the issue. I think that the scientific community is no longer conducting science. I am not the only one that makes that assertion either. Ben Stein just released a documentary in the last year or two showing how they do just what I'm accusing them of with the creation/evolution stuff. I happen to be on the evolution side of that debate, but it is still troubling that the people on the mainstream science side of any given issue refuse to act like human beings about things. All any of you guys do is accuse people of things that they aren't doing, condescend with ridiculous untrue conjecture made up from you trying to define their position different from how they have, and pretend you are right fighters when really you are just minions incapable of independent thought. Come debunk my nonsense, a$$hole, I'm interested to see what words you put in my mouth this time. You are an eternal optimist so hopefully you find something hopeful and luminescent to lie about this time. That's the GW way. Just make your oppositions arguments upfor them so they seem weaker than they are. You are doing a wonderful job. Let me guess, you'll be above it now. That's the card I'd play. You and that other idiot can make comments about me whining now and try to discredit me personally because God knows you have nothing but crap to say in substantial facts to represent yourselves. It's the same broken record over and over again. Just like the partisan political crowd. You're easy to predict.
That is exactly what you did. You want us to consider recent temperatures, which some deniers have pointed out is cooling, depending on when your time series begins. In other words it's not a robust finding. That is the definition of cherry picking.
Well you should think harder. All the modern technology you are using right now exists because of the scientific community. They are improving things as you type.
What kind of exposure do you actually have to science anyways?
Suppose I were to grant you that what you say about the practice of science being true. What kind of concrete steps would you say we need to make to in all fields so that you will be satisfied that what we are doing is practicing science?
Cru Hack One Year Later: Inside job ruled out - Inverstigation Continues
Nature has done an admirable one-year anniversary follow up on the CRU hack affair. The article is long, but this piece jumped out at me:
“.. More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.”
One of the least commented-on mysteries of this affair, is why so little attention has been paid to who the hackers were, and what were their motives. The right wing noise machine has successfully propagated the “gate” suffix in the referencing the event, but in the original “gate” event, Watergate, the investigation focused on the burglars, not the victims. It’s a testimony to what’s happened to our media that the idea of crime and punishment have been turned on their head, and truth tellers become targets of journalists, instead of the criminal perpetrators.
Nature has done an admirable one-year anniversary follow up on the CRU hack affair. The article is long, but this piece jumped out at me:
“.. More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.”
One of the least commented-on mysteries of this affair, is why so little attention has been paid to who the hackers were, and what were their motives. The right wing noise machine has successfully propagated the “gate” suffix in the referencing the event, but in the original “gate” event, Watergate, the investigation focused on the burglars, not the victims. It’s a testimony to what’s happened to our media that the idea of crime and punishment have been turned on their head, and truth tellers become targets of journalists, instead of the criminal perpetrators.
I am not trying to get you to consider any recent temperature changes. I don't really give a crap about any of that stuff. My point was that there are people claiming things contrary to what you claim, and they are no less scientists than the people who's stories you believe. I choose to believe neither. I'm not cherry picking anything. I've been consistent saying the whole thing is crap.
It's not about what you need to do to ensure what you are doing is actually science. It's the whole system being set up in ivory towers dictating what gets funding and what doesn't. It's not science when you engineer the results you wanted beforehand. That's exactly what they are doing. Lying. To properly fix the system heads need to roll. The climategate panel was a cherry picked bunch of insiders set up to do nothing more than dismiss the idea that real crime actually occurred there, which it most certainly did. If you want real science, then fund real science. Rehire the people unfairly fired. Stop the collusion to manipulate data. It's very simple. Take the big international banks and big money out of the scientific community. It is no longer a public thing. It has become private. When the companies that have billions of dollars to gain if GW is true are funding the "science" than what do you expect for them to find? The Universities are adherent to the private financial consortium backing them.
These are the same people that brought us, the Earth is flat, and bleeding people out to cure them from fevers. These are the same imbeciles that tell us every drug is safe after they do "testing" and then half of those drugs turn out to be very unsafe and end up in lawsuits. When they are right it is not because they knew anything. It's just because they were lucky. GW might be out there. They have no idea if it is or not but it might be out there and it might be man's fault. I'm not willing to concede any more than dumb luck on the part o the scientific community that it is out there because they have yet to show a track record of being right about anything in the past and aren't taking the necessary steps to be credible unbiased sources of information on the subject.
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Coming from the guy that accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist. Where's your tinfoil hat? the sophisticated people on the anti GW kick... give me a break. Oh, the poor criminals own emails, where they confess their crimes and indicate the level of criminality going on in the system, should have been left alone. Those poor criminals are the real victims here. They should be allowed to be lying cowards with no spine and no integrity greedily spinning a BS story for more funding and standing in a fake scientific community. Poor buggers.
That is exactly what you were trying to do. You thought that those observations were inconsistent with my view, and that I should call them crap. Well I don't. It was implicit in what you said, you think that a few years where temperature is not going up invalidates a theory. Well it doesn't. The long term forcing signal is smaller than the size of the forcing from internal variability. So over a few years or even two decades it's concealed by all the noise. On long time scales, it's clearly evident.
I mean you don't even know how much you don't know. There is very solid science here that confirms observation with theory.
You can't even explain why the science is crap. You just mindlessly and continually parrot that it is, without any kind of objective reasoning or supporting facts.
What specifically do you know about applying for grants? You'll need to give more detail than this. So far you're just parroting standard nonsense of people who have no experience with what they're talking about.
That's what you think they are doing. I had to write a proposal in my final year at school. I had to justify the number of animals I required. I had to explain my hypothesis. I had to cite research which supported the foundations for my hypothesis. I had to explain how I would go about to test my hypothesis. I had to detail the entire experimatal design and the methodology I would use. It was peer reviewed by three scientists, one who works for the National Research Council. I then ran my experiment, and presented my results. This is how scientists are trained, and this is what they do. Part of being a scientist is defending your grant applications.
None of it is engineered before hand. You're just waiving your arms in the air saying it's all bunk, and trotting out standard crap like flat earth hypothesis. The flat earth hypothesis was based on available knowledge and thinking of the time. It sounds insane now, but that's because science has taught us about the physical universe we inhabit. Science that formulates hypotheses, and tests them. Replicates results to build up the body of work in a field or area of study. And yes, some grants are turned down, and some areas of research get more funding than others. There is a finite amount of resources, and grant proposals work as a way to sort out good proposals from bad. Sometimes sloppy work gets approved.
Science is done by humans after all. Humans aren't perfect, ergo the systems we create will not be perfect.
You have no idea what you're talking about. None.
Look, I only said that the recent opinions that the Earth has actually been cooling fly in the face of the supposedly irrefutable evidence you guys seem to think there is. I never said it was something that is credible. I don't have any pretenses about the matter. I really couldn't care less. I don't believe them. I don't believe you. I think you are all a bunch of idiots for falling for this crap. Can I prove it's crap? No. Can you make me believe it isn't crap? Well, you can put countless piles of BS out there trying but it doesn't change things.
I have been to University. It's not an unfamiliar thing to me. I know that they aren't accomplishing anything. It's not just science departments that are fully taken over by big business, it's every department. Ask a medical doctor if he has one days worth of training in anything other than surgical procedures and prescribing drugs. You'll get a disturbing answer. The system forces it.
where I went, the University of Saskatchewan, they are essentially run by the syncotron people(spelling might be off there) and by Viterra, Cargill, etc. in the Agriculture department. They don't have a single program dealing with organic agriculture. They are the biggest Ag program in Canada too.
Like I said, though, it's not just science, although both examples I gave from U of S are science. The political department at the U of S is run by the NDP. They never conclude anything other than socialism is great. It's all a bunch of BS. I can't believe that anyone that has ever been to University and applied for grants, like you claim to have done, could conclude that it is all on the up and up and there is real science going on. Maybe, and by maybe I still mean it's highly unlikely yet still possible, there are random scientific studies in some fields that aren't influenced by the businesses and overall world views of elites. I doubt it though.
The blue clearly shows that I present the idea of the science saying the Earth is now cooling as a question, not as my opinion that I am cherry picking. The red explains that I don't believe any of it. The green is self explanatory.
I don't know how anyone can read that and determine that I am cherry picking science that I am trying to pass of on you guys. I want nothing to do with the science. I am saying that I don't agree with it. The mainstream scientific opinion is almost always wrong, or at the very least, it is partially wrong and seen as exaggerated and stupid in time, almost every time they put something out there. They come back and tear it down later.
Remember, it was the scientific community that gave "legitimacy" to Hitler as well. Then the East Germans had a scientific dictatorship of their own after WW2 even. Science masquerading as fact to push an agenda, whether it being political or financial, or both has a long history on this planet. There have been countless totalitarian regimes get going using science as their weapon. This is obviously part of this GW agenda as well. Whether it's true or not, that's not why they are concluding it is true.
They tried and continue to try to push a global carbon tax paid to a world bank. It's black and white. If the GW people would simply remove themselves from the Al Gores and Rothschilds of the world, and from big business money like GE then it would make their "studies" more credible. They have sold out, literally. That's all there is to it.
I have been to University. It's not an unfamiliar thing to me. I know that they aren't accomplishing anything. It's not just science departments that are fully taken over by big business, it's every department. Ask a medical doctor if he has one days worth of training in anything other than surgical procedures and prescribing drugs. You'll get a disturbing answer. The system forces it.
where I went, the University of Saskatchewan, they are essentially run by the syncotron people(spelling might be off there) and by Viterra, Cargill, etc. in the Agriculture department. They don't have a single program dealing with organic agriculture. They are the biggest Ag program in Canada too.
Like I said, though, it's not just science, although both examples I gave from U of S are science. The political department at the U of S is run by the NDP. They never conclude anything other than socialism is great. It's all a bunch of BS. I can't believe that anyone that has ever been to University and applied for grants, like you claim to have done, could conclude that it is all on the up and up and there is real science going on. Maybe, and by maybe I still mean it's highly unlikely yet still possible, there are random scientific studies in some fields that aren't influenced by the businesses and overall world views of elites. I doubt it though.
The blue clearly shows that I present the idea of the science saying the Earth is now cooling as a question, not as my opinion that I am cherry picking. The red explains that I don't believe any of it. The green is self explanatory.
I don't know how anyone can read that and determine that I am cherry picking science that I am trying to pass of on you guys. I want nothing to do with the science. I am saying that I don't agree with it. The mainstream scientific opinion is almost always wrong, or at the very least, it is partially wrong and seen as exaggerated and stupid in time, almost every time they put something out there. They come back and tear it down later.
Remember, it was the scientific community that gave "legitimacy" to Hitler as well. Then the East Germans had a scientific dictatorship of their own after WW2 even. Science masquerading as fact to push an agenda, whether it being political or financial, or both has a long history on this planet. There have been countless totalitarian regimes get going using science as their weapon. This is obviously part of this GW agenda as well. Whether it's true or not, that's not why they are concluding it is true.
They tried and continue to try to push a global carbon tax paid to a world bank. It's black and white. If the GW people would simply remove themselves from the Al Gores and Rothschilds of the world, and from big business money like GE then it would make their "studies" more credible. They have sold out, literally. That's all there is to it.
The quality of denier satire has really gone done the crapper lately. What happened to the good old days? At least the paper clip guy had some good material for his time..
This argument has either been going on for so long (ad nauseum) that all the good material has been used or...cartoonists have become bored with the subject...:-(
It's now down to just three or four dogged fanatics in this forum;-)
It's now down to just three or four dogged fanatics in this forum;-)
Somebody's got to stoke the fire to keep it going;-)
Al Gore: I shouldn't have supported corn-based ethanolBy Emi Kolawole
Updated, 4:12 p.m.: Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis has released a statement in response to Gore's regrets regarding his past position on corn-based ethanol:
"The contributions of first generation ethanol to our nation's economy, environment and energy production are not a mistake, but a success story."
Growth Energy is an organization representing American ethanol producers.
Original post: Former vice president Al Gore said Monday that he regrets supporting first-generation corn-based ethanol subsidies while he was in office.
Reuters reports that Gore said his support for corn-based ethanol subsidies was rooted more in his desire to cultivate farm votes for his presidential run in 2000 than in doing what was right for the environment:
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens, Greece. First-generation ethanol refers to the most basic, but also most energy intensive, process of converting corn to ethanol for use in vehicle engines.
Gore went on to say that "first-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small." Gore now supports so-called second-generation technologies that do not compete with food -- using farm waste or non-food sources such as switchgrass to make ethanol. He added that he did not expect to see a clean energy or climate bill for "at least two years" following Republican victories in the midterm elections.
How many more inconvenient lies will he admit to
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/22/gore-on-second-thought-i-was-just-pandering-to-the-farm-vote-on-ethanol/
About time, Gore is right to admit this.
Not sure how this is a lie and it has nothing to do with the science of climate change.
It's just plain fun to make mince meat from deniers.
Dosen't stop you or other politically motivated folks from coming in here to make yourselves look like fools.
Yea, well, every once and a while a poor soul will wander from his untouched Obama-hating haven and come into a real thread and get quashed. Natural selection is a bitch.
Oh Yeah.....and you can be sure that among the proponents of the cause, when Ricky and Julian show up....Bubbles ain't far behind:lol:
On the contrary. This thread was started by Avro to showcase one aspect, and he's pretty good at posting the latest material from the deniers.
The standard stuff is not new, there's always someone who will come along and say something like "Scientists predicted an impending ice age in the 1970's", a talking point so pervasive, wrong, and lacking in context that it even warranted a review in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
As to the folks who keep these threads going, most posters have styles, and that includes the content they are drawn to. Like you, you seem to be drawn towards discussions that polarize between left wing and right wing politics. So I guess that makes you more of a generalist than a specialist. Extrafire who comes and goes for long periods, is almost exclusively posting in this sub-forum. That makes him more of a specialist.
Takes all kinds to have a vibrant forum.