Noted Climatologist Sarah Palin Speaks
Cliff
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
Don't miss the comments <G>.
--
Cliff
lab~rat >:-)
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
>
> Don't miss the comments <G>.
She's as much a climatologist as John Holdren.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
Last Post
wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-...
>
> Don't miss the comments <G>.
•• Nothing but anti-American, fascist
bullshit in the Guardian.
•• Palin is probably better grounded than Gore.
Note: Cliff you used the correct homonym
for the noted "Climatologist and Global
Warming "Profit" Al Gore"
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Kali
Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
>
> Don't miss the comments <G>.
There's no way Sarah Palin wrote that op-ed.
Did you see this, Cliff?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-
change-deniers-monbiot-cards
"Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies?", he asked
in the Daily Express. "That's subliminal advertising, isn't it?"
- David Bellamy
--
The two most common elements in the universe
are hydrogen and stupidity. - Harlan Ellison
Cliff
>On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:16:48 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:
>
>>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
>>
>> Don't miss the comments <G>.
>
>She's as much a climatologist as John Holdren.
John Holdren:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
[
Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental
Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of
the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center
for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research
Center.[2]
]
[
He trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics and earned a
bachelor's degree from MIT in 1965 and a PhD from Stanford University in 1970.
He taught at Harvard for 13 years and at the University of California, Berkeley
for more than two decades.[1] His work has focused on the causes and
consequences of global environmental change, energy technologies and policies,
ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and science and
technology policy.
...
Holdren was elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) (2006-2007), and served as board Chairman (2007-2008).[2] He was
the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal
about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and
has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change.
]
[
Recent publications
Holdren is the author of over 200 articles and papers, and he has co-authored
and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, including:[12]
Science in the White House. Science Magazine, May 2009, 567.[13].
Policy for Energy Technology Innovation. Acting in Time on Energy Policy, (with
Laura Diaz Anadon), Brookings Institution Press, 2009, 89-127.
The Future of Climate Change Policy: The U.S.'s Last Chance to Lead. Scientific
American 2008 Earth 3.0 Supplement. October 13, 2008, 20-21.[14]
Convincing the Climate Change Skeptics. Boston Globe, August 4, 2008.[15]
Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy To Meet America's Energy
Challenges. Presentation at the National Academies 2008 Energy Summit,
Washington, D.C., March 14, 2008.[16]
Global Climatic Disruption: Risks and Opportunities. Presentation at Investor
Summit on Climate Risk, New York, February 14, 2008.[17]
Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge. The John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture,
National Council for Science and the Environment, Washington, D.C., January 17,
2008.[18]
]
[
Awards
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Member, National Academy of Engineering
Member, National Academy of Sciences
MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship, 1981
Member of President Clinton's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), 1994-2001
Chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, 1993-2004
Volvo Environment Prize of 1993 (with Paul Ehrlich)
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on
Science and World Affairs, December 1995
Chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World
Affairs, 1987-1997
Kaul Foundation Award in Science and Environmental Policy, 1999
Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, 2000
7th Annual Heinz Award in Public Policy, 2001[22]
Co-Chairman of the bipartisan National Committee on Energy Policy 2002-2007
President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006
]
Here are 8,446 SCIENCE hits for "John Holdren"
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22John+Holdren%22&t=all&sort=0&g=s
Sarah Louise Palin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_palin
[
She attended Wasilla High School,[13] where she was the head of the Fellowship
of Christian Athletes, and a member of the girls' cross country team. As captain
and point guard of the school's girls' basketball team that won the Alaska state
championship in 1982, she gained the nickname "Barracuda" for her competitive
streak.[14][15] She graduated in 1982.
She attended Hawaii Pacific University in the Fall of 1982 and North Idaho
College (whose Alumni Association gave her the Distinguished Alumni Achievement
Award in June 2008[16]) in the Spring and Fall of 1983.[17] In 1984, after
winning the Miss Wasilla pageant,[18][19] she finished third in the Miss Alaska
pageant,[20][21] receiving the "Miss Congeniality" award and a college
scholarship.[14]
She attended the University of Idaho in the Fall of 1984 and Spring of 1985,
Matanuska-Susitna College in the Fall of 1985, and the University of Idaho again
in the Spring and Fall of 1986 and the Fall of 1987, when she received her
Bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in
journalism.[4][17][22][23]
Palin's early ambition was to be a sportscaster.[24] Accordingly, after
graduating, she worked as a sportscaster [25] for KTUU-TV and KTVA-TV in
Anchorage,[26] and as a sports reporter for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.
]
She had someone else write a trivial book with little words for her.
There are NO "Sarah Louise Palin" Science hits
Lots of Sarah Palin mockery though:
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22Sarah+Palin%22&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=jnl
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22Sarah+Palin%22&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=nom
For a grand total of 71 hits (none authored by Palin).
She's funny.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
>>
>> Don't miss the comments <G>.
>
>Palin got her PhD in Climatology
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22Sarah+Palin%22&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=jnl
>the same place Gore did...
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22AL+GORE%22&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=jnl
http://scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=%22AL+GORE%22&t=all&drill=yes&sort=0&p=0&nds=nom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore
"Gore enrolled in Harvard University in 1965, the only college he had applied
to"
"In 1967 Gore took a course on climate science from Roger Revelle which made a
strong impression on him, influencing him in the direction of environmental
concerns"
"Gore graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government cum laude on June
12, 1969"
"Gore attended Vanderbilt Divinity School on a yearlong Rockefeller Foundation
scholarship for people planning secular careers; he had never intended to become
a minister and later said that "he had hoped to make sense of the social
injustices that seemed to challenge his religious beliefs."[37] Gore left
divinity school to work full time at the The Tennessean and returned to graduate
study, attending Vanderbilt University Law School from 1974 to 1976""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_the_environment
"Al Gore and the environment"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth
"An Inconvenient Truth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize
"Nobel Peace Prize"
> Because of
>this, their opinions should be given the same respect.
How odd .... Where is Palin's Nobel Prize?
--
Cliff
Aratzio
Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>Noted Climatologist Sarah Palin Speaks
>
>I'm glad to see there is a count voice to noted climatologist Gore.
>
You mean a man that has spent most of his life studying the science
and trying to affect policy based upon the facts as opposed to a woman
who could barely graduate college and as spent virtually no time
studying anything except how to quit.
Lets take a guess who would win that debate between gore and winky the
clown?
So make your case as to how Palin is better suited to advise the
President of the USA on climate. What are her credentials and what
areas of special study has she been doing with regard to climate
change over the last 30 years.
Then let us compare them to Mr. Gore's.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>>writing:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>>Noted Climatologist Sarah Palin Speaks
>>>
>>>I'm glad to see there is a count{er} voice to noted climatologist Gore.
>>
>>You mean a man that has spent most of his life studying the science
>
>Al Gore isn't a scientist but he plays on in the movies.
No, he does not. But don't let facts get in your way.
>
>>and trying to affect policy based upon the facts
>
>Mostly the fact that he will get rich off it. Follow the money.
>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>billionaire."
It is called "putting you money where your mouth is". Unless you think
he should not invest in the businesses and technologies he supports?
He is donating/reinvesting any and all profits in his investments to
his non-profit. He has stated that ad infinitum and yet not one of you
can credit that concept. Nor do you ever refute his statement with any
evidence that he is personally profitting from those investment.
Do you have an issue with T. Boone Pickens making a profit from his
investments in green energy and advocating for green energy? Does that
disqualify him from advocating? Is he also "dumb as rocks"?
>
>>as opposed to a woman
>>who could barely graduate college and as spent virtually no time
>>studying anything except how to quit.
>
>Like Senator Obama????
Well, there is a poorly devised comparison. Obama was the editor of
the Harvard Law Review. Hardly "barely graduate". Obama has only left
jobs to move up the political chain, he has continued to serve the
electorate throughout his political career and as opposed to literally
quitting those that had elected one to office.
>
>Stop baiting. I have never defended Palin and never will.
I didn't say you did, I pointed out your comparison was stupid.
>
>>Lets take a guess who would win that debate between gore and winky the
>>clown?
>
>Both dumb as rocks. It would be a joke fest. Humor of the highest
>order. Perhaps you would see it as an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>The rest of us would see it as a Keystone Cops rerun.
Really, A Harvard graduate is "dumb as rocks". Specifically what is
dumb about a man you quoted is to become the 'world's first "carbon
billionaire."'.
That would be called mental dissonance. The ability to contend two
opposing concepts are correct.
>
>>So make your case as to how Palin is better suited to advise the
>>President of the USA on climate. What are her credentials and what
>>areas of special study has she been doing with regard to climate
>>change over the last 30 years.
>
>Their credentials are identical - zero.
Wow, that is an amazing concept you have there. You don't agree with
his politics or agenda, you complain he will make too much money from
his expertise and then state he is dumb and has no credentials in
those areas he will be making millions and possibly billions.
One does have to begin to wonder how much you know about business,
finance or economics in additioan to your lack of political acumen.
>
>>Then let us compare them to Mr. Gore's.
>
>Which you then never do. Hummm.....
You forgot between the beginning of the post and there, right? The
part where I stated his most basic qualifications and to which you
dismissed with fact free opinion.
Since you are obviously incapable of actually doing even the most
basic research on your own:
:Gore enrolled in Harvard University in 1965, the only college he had applied to.[19] Tipper,
:whom he had been dating since his senior prom, followed him to Boston, first attending
:Garland Junior College and later transferring to Boston University, where she majored in psychology.[20][21]
:
:As a freshman, Gore planned to be an English major and was working on a novel.[22]
:In 1967 Gore took a course on climate science from Roger Revelle which made a strong
:impression on him, influencing him in the direction of environmental concerns.[23]
:He was not tremendously engaged in his studies until the upheavals of 1968 and the
:assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Gore took a political science course,
:developed an interest in politics, and changed his major to government.[19]
:He and his friends, however, did not participate in Harvard demonstrations.
:John Tyson, a former roommate, recalled that "We distrusted these movements
:a lot because a lot of this stuff was very emotional and not well thought out.
:We were a pretty traditional bunch of guys, positive for civil rights and women's
:rights but formal, transformed by the social revolution to some extent but not
:buying into something we considered detrimental to our country."[19]
:
:Gore graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government cum laude on June 12, 1969.[24]
:The Washington Post described his commencement ceremony as a "Sixties period piece"
:of tradition and chaos. This included the moment when "President Nathan Pusey delivered
:his time-honored welcoming of the graduates to 'the company of educated men,' [and]
:hundreds of seniors rose from their folding chairs, raised their fists in defiance, and walked out."[25]
So do tell me how your conclusion of "dumb as rocks" coincides with
being a Cum Laude graduate of Harvard.
So there is the basic Harvard info, note that his interest and
education in the climate began in 1967. 32 years ago. He has
maintained that and been quite active in the shaping of US policy on
the subject.
Now, go ahead, compare that qualification and education with the
person you claim is equitible in stature:
>
>I say they are both incompetent fools out to make money for
>themselves. You say one is good, one is bad. And earlier you told us
>>>I<< was driven by ideology. Hee, hee, good one.
Yes, you are. Just look how the facts refute your "opinion" and how
you insist that two diametricly opposing concepts are both true in
reference to the same person.
Your inability to spew anything other than your attacks upon the
character of Gore and the complete lack of anything approaching
accurate information.
>
>What has Gore been doing with regard to climate
>warming/change/whatever it is this week? Follow the money.
>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>billionaire."
Investing in what you believe? Really, that is a negative in your
ideology? Seriously? Putting your own money on the line is a bad
thing?
Even if he was not reinvesting all the profits, make your case he
should not be allowed to apply free-market principals to his life?
r wiley
"Aratzio" <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:qse8i550vbancbu91...@4ax.com...
>
> Really, A Harvard graduate is "dumb as rocks". Specifically what is
> dumb about a man you quoted is to become the 'world's first "carbon
> billionaire."'.
>
It might be possible to take you seriously if your side hadn't spent the
eight years from January 2001 - January 2009 telling us that a Harvard
graduate is "dumb as rocks".
rw
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> writing:
>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>>writing:
>>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Noted Climatologist Sarah Palin Speaks
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm glad to see there is a count{er} voice to noted climatologist Gore.
>>>>
>>>>You mean a man that has spent most of his life studying the science
>>>
>>>Al Gore isn't a scientist but he plays on in the movies.
>>
>>No, he does not. But don't let facts get in your way.
>
>
>>>>and trying to affect policy based upon the facts
>>>
>>>Mostly the fact that he will get rich off it. Follow the money.
>>>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>>>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>>>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>>>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>>>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>>>billionaire."
>>
>>It is called "putting you money where your mouth is". Unless you think
>>he should not invest in the businesses and technologies he supports?
>
>He only profits if the government subsidizes his "green" programs and
>forces individuals and commercial operations to do the same.
Wow, more completely unsupported invective. What a surprise.
Does mouthing other peoples talking points make you feel good or have
you ever given thought to actually researching the facts before you
spew?
>
>>He is donating/reinvesting any and all profits in his investments to
>>his non-profit. He has stated that ad infinitum and yet not one of you
>>can credit that concept. Nor do you ever refute his statement with any
>>evidence that he is personally profitting from those investment.
>
>And that "non-profit" supplies him a huge house (how green), a private
>jet (how green), and a lavish life style (how green). But he
>personally makes zero. What a joke.
No, it does not, the Gore family is quite wealthy without the
investments. Do you have even one fact that is accurate?
>
>>Do you have an issue with T. Boone Pickens making a profit from his
>>investments in green energy and advocating for green energy? Does that
>>disqualify him from advocating? Is he also "dumb as rocks"?
>
>He has never been vice president. He has never MADE policy. He has
>never claimed he was a knight on a white horse riding to save the
>world. He says he's an investor out to make a buck. And if he screws
>up and looses his money, he is not backstopped by the US and other
>treasuries.
So, only vice-presidents are forbidden from using their own money and
investing in things they support and have supported for over 30 years.
But a johnny come lately who spent literally billions of corporate
dollars polluting the environment is allowed to suddenly have a change
of heart and make money off of the exact same technologies and
businesses.
Good to know how deep your hypocrisy runs.
>
>>>>as opposed to a woman
>>>>who could barely graduate college and as spent virtually no time
>>>>studying anything except how to quit.
>>>
>>>Like Senator Obama????
>>
>>Well, there is a poorly devised comparison. Obama was the editor of
>>the Harvard Law Review. Hardly "barely graduate". Obama has only left
>>jobs to move up the political chain, he has continued to serve the
>>electorate throughout his political career and as opposed to literally
>>quitting those that had elected one to office.
>
>Nice spin. Convenient "stupidity" you are faking. Obama cut and run
>from his office just like Palin did.
Obama was elected to higher office. What higher office was winky the
clown elected to before she quit.
>She "has only left jobs to move up the political chain" too.
Really?
So Senator is a step down? You think being a US Senator is a lesser
position than the Governor of Alaska. It might be (very might) if you
are the Governor of California, Texas or New York. But Alaska, really?
Maybe a Cabinet post is a step down too?
How about Vice-President? I seem to remember that was a job she wanted
at one point, step down too?
How about Congressman, they only have one of them in Alaska.
I'll bet all those Governors and Senators that have become Cabinet
officials would disagree.
Maybe if you are Governor of Utah you can aspire to become an
Ambassador.
Really, that was probably the most pathetic response you have made
yet. But don't worry, I have confidence you will exceed your current
efforts.
>She too claims "to serve the electorate
>throughout her political career". He "literally quit those that had
>elected him to office" just like Palin.
Really, in what way is he no longer serving in elective office to the
people of his state? Feel free to explain how the President of the USA
does not serve the people of Illinois. He is the President for
everyone except Illinois? Who is their elected official in the White
House?
I'll stick with your previous response as "most pathetic" but that one
was pretty damn close.
>
>Gosh, the differences are staggering. Hee, hee. Good one.
Being pathetic causes you to giggle? Sad, truly sad.
>
>>>Stop baiting. I have never defended Palin and never will.
BTW: I did rather enjoy your recent defense of Palin. So much for
consistency.
>>
>>I didn't say you did, I pointed out your comparison was stupid.
>
>No, you went to some pains to attack Palin - at length - in the hope
>you would goad me into defending her. She is a nut. Good try; move
>on.
No, she is a moron. Quite the difference. You would like to move on
because you keep failing in your comparisons and you have to work far
too hard to even make the most inept of comparisons. Comparisons that
fail upon even the mildest of critical analysis.
You want to move on, stop trying to make comparisons that I can shred
like a blown tire on at Daytona. I love shredding people's pathetic
comparisons.
>
>>>>Lets take a guess who would win that debate between gore and winky the
>>>>clown?
>>>
>>>Both dumb as rocks. It would be a joke fest. Humor of the highest
>>>order. Perhaps you would see it as an intellectual exchange of ideas.
>>>The rest of us would see it as a Keystone Cops rerun.
>>
>>Really, A Harvard graduate is "dumb as rocks". Specifically what is
>>dumb about a man you quoted is to become the 'world's first "carbon
>>billionaire."'.
>
>A feat any common criminal can do. Bernie Madoff for example. Rich
>in no way means honestly earned. It certainly doesn't require any
>astounding intelligence. And it most absolutely does not require a
>degree in a very difficult science.
Bernie Madoff was exceedingly intelligent. Your claim was Gore is
"dumb as rocks" your support when challenged by facts is to use a
strawman of a criminal, who was quite intelligent, to prove that you
were correct in your assertion that Gore is "dumb as rocks".
Do you have anything? Even one scintilla of evidence that a Cum Laude
graduate of Harvard is "dumb as rocks"? I am sure Harvard is waiting
to hear from you so that they might reassess their scholastic scoring
to preclude ever awarding someone you have deemed "dumb as rocks" a
Cum Laude.
>
>>That would be called mental dissonance. The ability to contend two
>>opposing concepts are correct.
>
>See above comparison of Obama/Gore and Palin - mostly framed in your
>own words. You seem to be able to contend that two identical concepts
>are vastly different.
Obama applied for and received a promotion from his employers. Palin
quit her employers.
Gore according to you is both "dumb as rocks" and capable of becoming
the "worlds first carbon billionaire"
Tell me about all the "dumb as rocks" billionaires in the world.
These are your claims:
Promotion is quitting
Quitting is not quitting
"Dumb As Rocks" is Profit!
Like I said, mental dissonance.
It is like Michael Steele claiming government spending money does not
create jobs and then sending a letter to Obama saying don't do HCR,
spend the money on jobs.
You just don't get it do you?
>
>>>>So make your case as to how Palin is better suited to advise the
>>>>President of the USA on climate.
>
>Nice spin. Total lie of course. I said her credentials were zero.
>Are you having a lot of trouble understanding that, or are you still
>trying to bait me?
So who should be advising the President on the Climate? Who do you
feel is qualified to advise the President of the United States on
climate and energy policy?
>
>>>>What are her credentials and what
>>>>areas of special study has she been doing with regard to climate
>>>>change over the last 30 years.
>>>
>>>Their credentials are identical - zero.
>>
>>Wow, that is an amazing concept you have there. You don't agree with
>>his politics or agenda,
>
>"His agenda" is a good description. He wants to loot the treasury to
>line his pockets. Not a bit different than Bush's WMDs and Cheney's
>mushroom clouds over America within months. Scare tactics to loot the
>treasury.
And more fact free aspersions. That is all you ever spew. No facts,
just what some talking head on TV or the internet spewed and you
wanted to believe.
Does that make T. Boone Pickens investments suspect since he is
receiving government grants and loans?
>
>>you complain he will make too much money from his expertise
>
>I never said he HAD and expertise.
He has to have something, according to you he will be a billionaire.
If he is "dumb as rocks" like you claim, there is no way he would be
able to make a billion.
So has he been wasting the last 30+ years advocating for environmental
causes without learning anything? Not an iota of expertise has been
garnered from his years as a Congressman, Senator, Vic-President and
Entrepreneur?
Wow, amazing someone like that can make a billion dollars. I am amazed
that there are not billions becoming billionaires using the same
business model.
>
>>and then state he is dumb and has no credentials
>
>I said he would be as dumb as Palin in a debate and I said he has no
>credentials as a scientist.
No, you said he is "dumb as rocks". Nice backpedal.
>As a con man he is superb. Con men often
>get rich. Many of them get away with their crimes.
Usually because they are "dumb as rocks", right?
So what is his con, be specific and support your claims this time.
Maybe you can explain how his reinvestment of ALL profits in a
non-profit pays him a billion.
You do have solid supportable evidence that investing his own money is
a scam and he is conning his investors in some way?
>
>>in >those areas he will be making millions and possibly billions.
>
>Looted from the treasury. You keep thinking thievery by lies and
>intimidation is honest earnings.
So I await your evidence, unless you think spewing your fact free and
completely unsupported statements is convincing?
>
>>One does have to begin to wonder how much you know about business,
>>finance or economics in additioan to your lack of political acumen.
>
>My field is science. Gore's is stealing money. Yours is mindless
>praise of tin gods.
Really, exactly which science do you have your degree?
But I am glad you felt the need to try and impress me with your
learning. Your prior efforts have been sufficient to detail all I
actually needed to know. Really, you shouldn't have. I mean that in
the most sincere manner.
>
>>>>Then let us compare them to Mr. Gore's.
>>>
>>>Which you then never do. Hummm.....
>>
>>You forgot between the beginning of the post and there, right? The
>>part where I stated his most basic qualifications and to which you
>>dismissed with fact free opinion.
>
>His most basic qualification is that he made a movie.
No, that came after 30 years of advocacy, policy and service. You
really have a hardon for Al, don't you. It just pains you that he is
so successful in his life's work and has had an actual impact and a
legacy that will stand for him in the generations to come. You want to
feel superior to him and each of his accomplishments is like a burr
under that inferiority complex with which you have saddled yourself.
You really should attempt to work on that and learn to let go the
things that you cannot control.
>Wow, now the
>three stooges are experts on the climate. Do you suppose we can
>include Hopalong Cassidy. At least he understood horse shit.
So, will you be supplying anything to support your views? Maybe a peer
reviewed article that shows that everything Al Gore says is wrong,
that he is actually "dumb as rocks" and a con man steeling billions
from government coffers?
Maybe one of those 3?
>
>>Since you are obviously incapable of actually doing even the most
>>basic research on your own:
>
>Ah, the ultimate refuge of a leftist winger in a corner - slam out a
>personal attack and then quote some canned praise of your tin gods.
Are you always such a whiney hypocrite
"Yours is mindless praise of tin gods."
Unless you have evidence where you have supplied an iota of support
for your claims, then the facts are, you do not do any research of
your own.
>I didn't see the part where he got a degree in climateology.
Who, besides you, ascribed the mantel of scientist to Mr. Gore?
>I did see a lot of stuff about politics.
Shocking that the son of a Senator would gravitate towards policy.
Since that was something he understood, he used his education to shape
policy via politics. Someone needs to do that if you want a policy to
be followed.
So, do you see having a background in politics and then working on
policy for 30 years to be a bad thing?
>Palin has no degree in
>climateology but she is doing moderately well in politics.
*BOGGLE*
Palin is doing well? Really, what political office does she hold now
that she quit her elected office and in what way does she shape policy
in the USA?
Maybe Obama didn't laugh as hard at her expense when she said he
should boycott Copenhagen. That would be the extent of her policy
input.
Well, I'll give her this much she did eliminate the fictional "death
panels". The Easter Bunny is her next fictional item to eliminate.
>
>Keep on digging. You just keep highlighting that they are identical
>without showing any difference.
Really, you cannot find any difference between:
Gore: a man who was a Cum Laude graduate of Harvard, Viet Nam Vet,
Author, Congressman, Senator, Vice-President, received a plurality of
votes for President in 2000, environmental activist, Academy Award
winner, successful businessman, Nobel Laureate and according to you on
his way to a Billionaire status. A lifetime of personal and public
success and accomplishment.
Palin: Runner-up in Miss Alaska, failed flutist, indifferent student
and eventual graduate in college after attending 5 different schools,
wannabe sportscaster, quit virtually every job to which she has
aspired, failed candidate for vice-president and now is a facebook
blogger of some repute. Since she didn't write her book, she isn't an
Author. A lifetime of failure and indifference.
You see those as the same thing? Really? Truly bizarre. It does not
matter whether you agree with anything in Gore's life, he set goals
for himself and has had the integrity to achieve those goals
throughout his life.
That you could even hold the thought in your head that they are in any
way similar shows the depths to which you will go to delude yourself
and support your delusions.
>
>>>I say they are both incompetent fools out to make money for
>>>themselves. You say one is good, one is bad. And earlier you told us
>>>>>I<< was driven by ideology. Hee, hee, good one.
>>
>>Yes, you are. Just look how the facts refute your "opinion" and how
>>you insist that two diametricly opposing concepts are both true in
>>reference to the same person.
>
>Facts? You gave us facts? The web must have dropped some bits.
So the quotation above concerning Gore's Harvard education, you forgot
that already. Really, that is just frightening that information slips
out of your *mind* so very quickly. It is no wonder you have such a
severe case of mental dissonance.
>
>>Your inability to spew anything other than your attacks upon the
>>character of Gore and the complete lack of anything approaching
>>accurate information.
>
>Phrase. Does the above mean anything? Nice personal attack though.
>I can feel your venom. Very nicely done.
That is not venom, that is pity. Pity that you cannot think for
yourself and the result is a wholly fractured ability to think in a
cogent manner.
>
>Your inability to see that every thing leftist winger is god given
>good and any critics are the devil incarnate shows you for the
>mindless party loyalist that you apparently are. So far everything
>you have written is astoundingly one sided. I recognize both sides
>for the self serving clowns that they are. Now, who's biased?
You are, look at the bile you spew with regard to Al Gore. I'll
paraphrase TimK, you make everything into a cartoonish scenario and
laugh because all you can see is a cartoon.
>
>>>What has Gore been doing with regard to climate
>>>warming/change/whatever it is this week? Follow the money.
>>>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>>>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>>>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>>>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>>>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>>>billionaire."
>>
>>Investing in what you believe? Really, that is a negative in your
>>ideology? Seriously? Putting your own money on the line is a bad
>>thing?
>
>You are repeating yourself. See above. And your grammar is slipping
>again. The venom I suppose.
Dumbass, you repeated your own quotation. So of course I answered in
the same manner. Really, did you expect something different after you
posted the same lies above:
"
>>>Mostly the fact that he will get rich off it. Follow the money.
>>>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>>>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>>>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>>>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>>>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>>>billionaire."
Frightening how little you can remember from one paragraph to the
next.
>>
"
>
>>Even if he was not reinvesting all the profits, make your case he
>>should not be allowed to apply free-market principals to his life?
>
>You are repeating yourself. See above. Leftist wingers always do
>think if they tell the same lie often enough someone will believe
>them.
Really, where did UI state anything about "not reinvesting" or "free
market principals" before?
So you going to answer the question or just pretend it didn't exist
again?
"make your case he should not be allowed to apply free-market
principals to his life?"
Come on, support your claim he is stealing money and should not be
allowed to make any money in the green economy that he has supported
for decades.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Wow, more completely unsupported invective. What a surprise.
>>
>>Does mouthing other peoples talking points make you feel good or have
>>you ever given thought to actually researching the facts before you
>>spew?
>
>Dismiss and deny. Typical leftist winger.
You could have kept the context intact. Well, if you weren't a coward.
>
>Your practice seems to be to make unsupported crap statements. Then
>when called to task or corrected, you just dismiss your
>correspondent's points with no rebuttal, no line of counter argument,
>no pointer to what you consider "facts".
You could have just go with "I know you are but what am I".
But I must say, that coming from the person who dismisses links with
factual evidence on ideological grounds, your statement was a red line
on the Alcatrool Labs Digital Irony Meter.
>
>Just take your word for it that everyone is wrong who says something
>you don't like.
Really, so providing links to support my statements was insufficient
for you? Was there something beyond refuting with facts that you would
consider better? Maybe I could mouth some Hannity talking points about
water in the Central Valley of California or maybe I could claim that
"humans will adjust" when questioned about the rising sea levels and
their effects.
>
>This is typical of someone that is certain of their position but has
>no idea why they are sure of it. It's just their mantra.
Really, here is a question:
What are the long term effects upon humans as the sea levels rise, we
will keep it very very simple and limit it to "salt water incursion".
I'm not a climatologist but I've seen first hand what some of the
issues are there.
Maybe we could discuss the changing weather patterns over the wet and
arid regions and how we will build the infrastructure to feed humanity
if the midwest of the USA becomes arid and the Sahara becomes wet?
Do you have any information to add to those beyond your simplistic
jingoism and talking points?
>
>It's impossible to have a discussion with such a trolling fool.
BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAA
Or when you are losing at every turn. Might as well turn tail and run.
>
>Have a good life.
Yeah, run away, typical no nothing wingnut.
�n�hw��f
thought with news:6bu8i5tqn5up9oq9t...@4ax.com:
[cutting to the chase]
> Really, here is a question:
> What are the long term effects upon humans as the sea levels rise,
Flooding low lying areas. Venice comes to mind. Mauritania (sp?)
islands are only 70 ft above sea level.
Displaced populations...
> we will keep it very very simple and limit it to "salt water
> incursion". I'm not a climatologist but I've seen first hand what
> some of the issues are there.
>
Well you could talk about the thermohaline cycle:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10149
The UK would get cooler if the gulf stream crapped out.
> Maybe we could discuss the changing weather patterns over the wet
> and arid regions and how we will build the infrastructure to feed
> humanity if the midwest of the USA becomes arid and the Sahara
> becomes wet?
>
If its sudden things will be disrupted, sure. If its gradual people
will simply have to adapt.
> Do you have any information to add to those beyond your simplistic
> jingoism and talking points?
>
Whats the source? Fox Noise or PigBoy Limbaugh?
Heh...
>>
>>It's impossible to have a discussion with such a trolling fool.
>
> BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAA
> Or when you are losing at every turn. Might as well turn tail and
> run.
>
>>
>>Have a good life.
>
> Yeah, run away, typical no nothing wingnut.
>
Climate change will be scarey. Might make humanity shift into co-
operative mode.
<shrugs>
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COaoYqkpkUA
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
I M @ good guy
wrote:
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
>thought with news:6bu8i5tqn5up9oq9t...@4ax.com:
>
>[cutting to the chase]
>
>> Really, here is a question:
>> What are the long term effects upon humans as the sea levels rise,
>
>Flooding low lying areas. Venice comes to mind. Mauritania (sp?)
>islands are only 70 ft above sea level.
70 feet? Are you goofy, there is no way in
50,000 years to raise sea level 70 feet without
an asteroid impact on Greenland or Antarctica,
or a major, major, seismic event there or one
of the super volcanos exploding.
70 feet? 70 inches would have people
in London and a lot of cities wading.
The "developing" countries are obviously
more interested in money than in keeping
sea level where it is.
Regardless, areas of low elevation should
be taking action to avert loss of life in the next
storm to hit, whenever that may be.
They should be asking for help with that,
not cash.
Cliff
>In article <n042i5toido0jln6l...@4ax.com>,
>Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om says...
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/dec/09/sarah-palin-obama-boycott-copenhagen
>>
>> Don't miss the comments <G>.
>
>There's no way Sarah Palin wrote that op-ed.
Thinking her rehug ghostwriters did?
Good point . it has a few big words an it took her about
six (unknown?) colleges to learn to read from the teleprompter
catchy phrases such as "Number 17 has the ball". Then nobody
would pay her to do it it seemed.
>Did you see this, Cliff?
No, thanks for it.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/mar/09/climate-
>change-deniers-monbiot-cards
"Monbiot's royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards"
LOL
>"Have you noticed there is a wind turbine on Teletubbies?", he asked
>in the Daily Express. "That's subliminal advertising, isn't it?"
>- David Bellamy
"Americans would elect a ham sandwich for president if it would promise them
jobs and a higher income." --Ron Bonjean, GOP strategist
Ham Sandwich + Palin in 2012
I just had a bad thought. What if Ham Sandwich gets
impeached of has a stroke or something similar? Like
an attack of the galloping mold?
Guess who would assume "leadership" .....
Palin can see the moon from her broom so she's a
Space Cadet.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:02:19 -0800, A-rat-so wrote:
>>
>> < a bunch of irrelevant hate crap snipped >
>>
>> What I found ironic is that even as you deny Holdren's desire to kill off
>> 5 billion people, you yourself advocate killing off all who have
>> political views that you disagree.
>>
>> What is it about you AGWers that you want to kill billions of people,
>> anyway?
>
>It gives them cover for extermination of their capitalist enemies.
>
>Like when you are a Nazi and want to kill Jews you blame them for having
>too much money... the parallel is freakish.
>
>The Global-warming-crowd/Democrat-Socialists, need to be looked at with
>Nazis in the back of your mind. *They whip up HATE* for Wall Street
>executives and the Capitalist Stock Market..... all the while building
>their security forces and pushing their agenda and saying if you are
>against us you will be destroyed. Congress and the Government are
>bending and will give in to the threats and clubbing from the Left.
>
>Their gaols and their plan to get there with Abortion/euthanasia and
>eugenics(health care), then environmental fears and Unions to organize
>and regiment their radicals into terrorism and secret police and brown
>shirts like ELF, SEIU, ACORN and the dream of Americorps becoming a
>civil guard to oversee each neighborhood.
>
>Don't fear them... just recognize them.
Has anyone seen a better winger nutjob lately?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Marvin the Martian wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:02:19 -0800, A-rat-so wrote:
>>
>> < a bunch of irrelevant hate crap snipped >
>>
>> What I found ironic is that even as you deny Holdren's desire to kill off
>> 5 billion people, you yourself advocate killing off all who have
>> political views that you disagree.
>>
>> What is it about you AGWers that you want to kill billions of people,
>> anyway?
>
>It gives them cover for extermination of their capitalist enemies.
>
>Like when you are a Nazi and want to kill Jews you blame them for having
>too much money... the parallel is freakish.
>
>The Global-warming-crowd/Democrat-Socialists, need to be looked at with
>Nazis in the back of your mind. *They whip up HATE* for Wall Street
>executives and the Capitalist Stock Market..... all the while building
>their security forces and pushing their agenda and saying if you are
>against us you will be destroyed. Congress and the Government are
>bending and will give in to the threats and clubbing from the Left.
>
>Their gaols and their plan to get there with Abortion/euthanasia and
>eugenics(health care), then enviromental fears and Unions to organize
>and regiment their radicals into terrorism and secret police and brown
>shirts like ELF, SEIU, ACORN and the dream of Americore becoming a civil
Cliff
>Maybe I could mouth some Hannity talking points about
>water in the Central Valley of California or maybe I could claim that
>"humans will adjust" when questioned about the rising sea levels and
>their effects.
Re: Time to evacuate California?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8414252.stm
"Satellites weigh California water"
Oops .. where did it all go?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:12:41 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Wow, more completely unsupported invective. What a surprise.
>>>
>>>Does mouthing other peoples talking points make you feel good or have
>>>you ever given thought to actually researching the facts before you
>>>spew?
>>
>>Dismiss and deny. Typical leftist winger.
>
>You could have kept the context intact. Well, if you weren't a coward.
IIRC "talking points" is right out of Faux "news" (telling lies).
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
>thought with news:6bu8i5tqn5up9oq9t...@4ax.com:
>
>[cutting to the chase]
>
>> Really, here is a question:
>> What are the long term effects upon humans as the sea levels rise,
>
>Flooding low lying areas. Venice comes to mind.
The main current problem there is that it's sinking as old
sediments continue to decompose, dewater & compact.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Flooding low lying areas. Venice comes to mind. Mauritania (sp?)
>islands are only 70 ft above sea level.
>Displaced populations...
More than 20% of the world's population & food supply ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>> Maybe we could discuss the changing weather patterns over the wet
>> and arid regions and how we will build the infrastructure to feed
>> humanity if the midwest of the USA becomes arid and the Sahara
>> becomes wet?
>>
>If its sudden things will be disrupted, sure. If its gradual people
>will simply have to adapt.
But in 10 to 30 thousand years the Sahara may again
become damp. No problem.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:07:36 -0600, "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure
>>thought with news:6bu8i5tqn5up9oq9t...@4ax.com:
>>
>>[cutting to the chase]
>>
>>> Really, here is a question:
>>> What are the long term effects upon humans as the sea levels rise,
>>
>>Flooding low lying areas. Venice comes to mind. Mauritania (sp?)
>>islands are only 70 ft above sea level.
>
>
> 70 feet? Are you goofy, there is no way in
>50,000 years to raise sea level 70 feet without
>an asteroid impact on Greenland or Antarctica,
~ 70 inches circa 2100 then it gets bad.
>or a major, major, seismic event there or one
>of the super volcanos exploding.
>
> 70 feet?
Or much more.
>70 inches would have people
>in London and a lot of cities wading.
Circa 2100.
> The "developing" countries are obviously
>more interested in money than in keeping
>sea level where it is.
Hence all their protests.
>
> Regardless, areas of low elevation should
>be taking action to avert loss of life in the next
>storm to hit, whenever that may be.
> They should be asking for help with that,
>not cash.
Or relocation ..... ?
--
Cliff
Aratzio
Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
probation for writing:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:07:36 -0600, "�n�hw��f" <snuh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Even if it suddenly became arable the infrastructure built over
decades to support a high level of farming activity does not exist.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>You could have kept the context intact. Well, if you weren't a coward.
>>
>>You could have just go with "I know you are but what am I".
>>
>>But I must say, that coming from the person who dismisses links with
>>factual evidence on ideological grounds, your statement was a red line
>>on the Alcatrool Labs Digital Irony Meter.
>
>>Do you have any information to add to those beyond your simplistic
>>jingoism and talking points?
>>
>>BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAA
>>Or when you are losing at every turn. Might as well turn tail and run.
>>
>>Yeah, run away, typical no nothing wingnut.
>
>In other words, you have nothing but like to attack people.
WOO HOO the contest snip with the irony meter frying hypocrisy of the
wingnut.
Here you go cupcake, the National Academy of Science:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778.abstract
:n a recent multimodel detection and attribution (D&A) study using
:the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated
:�fingerprint� pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water
:vapor was identifiable with high statistical confidence in satellite data.
Key words for you science challenged:
"anthropogenically caused changes"
Now, please feel free to show your chops and refute the science as
described:
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith >writing:
>>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You could have kept the context intact. Well, if you weren't a coward.
>>>>
>>>>You could have just go with "I know you are but what am I".
>>>>
>>>>But I must say, that coming from the person who dismisses links with
>>>>factual evidence on ideological grounds, your statement was a red line
>>>>on the Alcatrool Labs Digital Irony Meter.
>>>
>>>>Do you have any information to add to those beyond your simplistic
>>>>jingoism and talking points?
>>>>
>>>>BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAA
>>>>Or when you are losing at every turn. Might as well turn tail and run.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, run away, typical no nothing wingnut.
>>>
>>>In other words, you have nothing but like to attack people.
>>
>>WOO HOO the contest snip with the irony meter frying hypocrisy of the
>>wingnut.
>>
>>Here you go cupcake, the National Academy of Science:
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778.abstract
>
>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>line.
Well, that was quite the refutation of the study. Not that you have
shown any ability with respect to the science.
>
>>:n a recent multimodel detection and attribution (D&A) study using
>>:the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated
>>:�fingerprint� pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water
>>:vapor was identifiable with high statistical confidence in satellite data.
>>
>>Key words for you science challenged:
>>"anthropogenically caused changes"
>>
>>Now, please feel free to show your chops and refute the science as
>>described:
>
>Please show your chops and prove the science as described. That's
>where the burden is.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778.abstract
Note the scientific paper referenced in the article? You do know that
would be the evidence as provided? You have anything besides a
"gubbermint cornspiracy" as your refutation?
Really, that was one of the most inane and idiotic responses to a
published and peer reviewed scientific report I've ever had the
pleasure to observe. Quite an accomplishment because I've been
smacking you wingnuts around for a lot of years.
Now, go ahead and play your wingnut victim card because I called you
stupid. I know the fact you are is quite evident but that won't slow
you down in the slightest and it really does not get to the depth of
your *intelligence*.
Cliff
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith >writing:
>>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You could have kept the context intact. Well, if you weren't a coward.
>>>>
>>>>You could have just go with "I know you are but what am I".
>>>>
>>>>But I must say, that coming from the person who dismisses links with
>>>>factual evidence on ideological grounds, your statement was a red line
>>>>on the Alcatrool Labs Digital Irony Meter.
>>>
>>>>Do you have any information to add to those beyond your simplistic
>>>>jingoism and talking points?
>>>>
>>>>BWAHAAAAHAAAAHAAA
>>>>Or when you are losing at every turn. Might as well turn tail and run.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, run away, typical no nothing wingnut.
>>>
>>>In other words, you have nothing but like to attack people.
>>
>>WOO HOO the contest snip with the irony meter frying hypocrisy of the
>>wingnut.
>>
>>Here you go cupcake, the National Academy of Science:
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778.abstract
>
>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>line.
IOW Science is WAY over the pointed little heads of wingers
with tinfoil caps glued on.
>>:n a recent multimodel detection and attribution (D&A) study using
>>:the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated
>>:�fingerprint� pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water
>>:vapor was identifiable with high statistical confidence in satellite data.
>>
>>Key words for you science challenged:
>>"anthropogenically caused changes"
>>
>>Now, please feel free to show your chops and refute the science as
>>described:
>
>Please show your chops and prove the science as described. That's
>where the burden is.
So see the science.
It's not like endless & clueless winger lies.
--
Cliff
Aratzio
>
>You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.
The typical wingnut when faced with actual peer reviewed science:
1. Place fingers in ears or any other available orifice.
2. Scream at top of lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
3. Blame interlocutor for fingers blocking hearing.
4. Play victim card because educated people are meany elitists and
make fun of the "STUPID".
5. Repeat until convinced that science bad, ignorance good.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> writing:
>
>>>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>>>line.
>>
>>Well, that was quite the refutation of the study. Not that you have
>>shown any ability with respect to the science.
>
>Your disappointment with the world has been noted.
Really, that is your refutation of actual science, done by actual
scientists, peer reviewed by different scientists? A one line non
sequitur.
Let me make sure I get your "method"
1. Demand evidence.
2. Ignore evidence when supplied.
3. Claim "gubbermint cornspiracy"
4. Victim Card.
5. Non Sequitur.
6. PROFIT!
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> writing:
>
>>>You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.
>>
>>The typical wingnut when faced with actual peer reviewed science:
>>1. Place fingers in ears or any other available orifice.
>>2. Scream at top of lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
>>3. Blame interlocutor for fingers blocking hearing.
>>4. Play victim card because educated people are meany elitists and
>>make fun of the "STUPID".
>>5. Repeat until convinced that science bad, ignorance good.
>
>There. You have stamped your two little left feet and you feel all
>better now. Right?
I see that leaving out the self-delusion part was a mistake.
Aratzio
>I see. A little more bile and spew left in you, is there? That's
>fine. Just let it all out. You will feel better in the end and
>you'll find closure. We are all here to hear your sad tale of a
>victim's woes.
Ohh, more wingnut froth. You seem irratated that all you could come up
with as a refutation was "Ids da gubbermint!".
>
>Say hello to Hope and Faith if you see them. I'd ask you to say hello
>to their sister, Transparency, but I don't think she lives here
>anymore.
And yet you still cannot refute even one scientific study. All your
arm waving and histrionics cannot make up for your turning tail and
running from the field.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>writing:
>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> writing:
>>>
>>>>>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>>>>>line.
>>>>
>>>>Well, that was quite the refutation of the study. Not that you have
>>>>shown any ability with respect to the science.
>>>
>>>Your disappointment with the world has been noted.
>>
>>Really, that is your refutation of actual science, done by actual
>>scientists, peer reviewed by different scientists? A one line non
>>sequitur.
>
>Not really. They all work for the same governments. They have
>careers to think of. Careers controlled by like minded superiors and
>peers. If they get out of line someone yells "tin foil" and it's all
>over. If they stick together and tell the truth, they just don't get
>another grant. These poor guys have families to feed in Obama's Even
>Greater Depression.
>
>>Let me make sure I get your "method"
>>
>>1. Demand evidence.
>1.5 Get a bunch of shit.
>>2. Ignore evidence when supplied.
>2.5 Realizing it's a bunch of fictitious shit. (and so far you have
>provided opinion pieces, not evidence.)
>>3. Claim "gubbermint cornspiracy"
>3.5 Don't need a conspriacy to realize the government is greedy and
>stupid. Look at polls to see how well government is pleasing folks.
>No need to ask me.
>>4. Victim Card.
>4.5 Leftists are the ones outraged because no one takes them
>seriously.
>>5. Non Sequitur.
>5.5 I think you guys sew them on your jeans or something. Flash
>pretty in the lights at the disco.
>>6. PROFIT!
>6.5 Yup. Gore is really hoping to profit from the non-conspiracy
>government regulation, mandates, taxation, and "investments".
>
>You forgot:
>
>7.0 Loot treasury.
>8.0 Tell the folks you just saved the world.
>9.0 Then say "vote for me".
WHEEE, when challenged, lie.
I had no idea that the National Academy of Science peer reviewed
studies are opinion.
You do seem to get a might snippy when you notice you have paint left
and just the corner in which you are standing.
Here I'll give you a 2nd chance, see if you can read, even the "werds
wit mor den to sillabuls"
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
Your opportunity to prove your "common sense" trumps the peer reviewed
work of 16 scientist and 22 studies:
Aratzio
>Are you telling us global warming/cooling will not wind up costing
>everyone in the world some of their money?
>
>>I had no idea that the National Academy of Science peer reviewed
>>studies are opinion.
>
>WHEEE, when challenged, lie. See above or below about "peer review".
>
>>You do seem to get a might snippy when you notice you have paint left
>>and just the corner in which you are standing.
>
>Me? I've been reasonably polite. Much more polite than your behavior
>has justified even allowing for your position as a left winger. You
>like calling people names. They are both typical behaviors. We
>normal folks in the middle are polite, wingers of both flavors are not
>really responsible for themselves.
>
>>Here I'll give you a 2nd chance, see if you can read, even the "werds
>>wit mor den to sillabuls"
>
>Yup, polite scholarly approach there. No attempt on your part to
>demean those who disagree with you.
>
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
>
>"In summary, model fingerprints of the response of atmospheric
>moisture to external forcings are identifiable in observations with
>high statistical confidence," The model made from the observations
>correlates with the observations the model was made from. Well, OK.
>Circular, but true.
Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
"I don't like the data so I will misinterpret the information and make
up my own reasons"
Wow, that is amazing, have you reported your findings to the NAS? I am
sure they are quite interested in how the peer review process broke
down in such an obvious manner that would allow someone like you to
repudiate years of data in so few "werds".
Of course you won't and would even be able to articulate your
reasoning in a manner that did not cause the intern/grad student to
fall down and hurt themselves laughing at you.
>
>From the data they had, they built a theory. To prove that theory
>they look at the same data, perhaps later versions of it, and conclude
>the data supports the theory they built from the data.
Not even close. You didn't understand the control, did you?
So your whole shtick is going to be that the scientist (16 of them)
got together and lied or intentionally distorted in such a manner that
other scientist still agree with their methodology, findings and
conclusions. Then they published their findings in a scientific
journal (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and ONLY you
are capable of identifying the error in their methods.
>
>This is one of countless attempts to build a model. They look good at
>first or they wouldn't be published. As they fail and crack over
>time, someone does a little program tweaking and publishes a new
>model. Wingers like you think that the latest one must be the truth.
>Finally. This time. Really. For sure. I mean this one here. Well
>really, this newer one. Wait, I have another.
Well, there you have it, all science should stop because it is
imperfect.
Now that you have spewed your imaginative and highly non-specific
beliefs as to how science bad and ignorance good how about you speak
in detail how the methodology using the control is flawed. No
weaselling like you said something that refutes the actual data like
"i don't like their model so I will misinterpret the statement and
call it cirular"
>
>Look at something new to test the model. Try to predict something
>that isn't known from the theory. Did the predicition work. Past
>tense. Try and find the most divergent theory possible from the same
>data and then test it's predictions against your first model.
Well, you must have missed this then:
:We use control and 20CEN results from 22 climate models.
:Model results are from the World Climate Research Program�s
:Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP-3) archive of
:simulations. The external forcings imposed in the 20CEN experiments
:differed between modeling groups. The most comprehensive
:experiments included changes in both natural external
:forcings (solar irradiance and volcanic dust loadings in the
:atmosphere) and a wide variety of anthropogenic influences
:(such as well mixed GHGs, ozone, sulfate and black carbon
:aerosols, and land surface properties). Details of the models,
:20CEN experiments, and control integrations are given in
:supporting information (SI) Text.
A control and 22 different models. Can you specifically determine that
even one does not fit your criteria?
Did you read the study? They ran the model against ALL 22 models of
divergent nature.
Are you claiming that ALL 15 modeling groups that supplied the 22
models are flawed in exactly the same ways? That the scientists in
China and in Germany are in colusion?
Official designations of the 15 modeling groups that supplied W data
are listed below (with model acronyms in brackets):
1. Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, Norway [BCCR-BCM2.0].
2. Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis, Canada [CCCma-
CGCM3.1(T47) and CCCma-CGCM3.1(T63)].
3. National Center for Atmospheric Research, U.S.A. [CCSM3 and PCM].
4. M�t�o-France/Centre National de Recherches M�t�orologiques, France
[CNRMCM3].
5. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO) Atmospheric
Research, Australia [CSIRO-Mk3.0].
6. Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany [ECHAM5/MPI-OM].
7. Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, Meteorological
Research Institute
of the Korean Meteorological Agency, and Model and Data group,
Germany/Korea
[MIUB/ECHO-G].
8. Institute for Atmospheric Physics, China [FGOALS-g1.0].
9. Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, U.S.A. [GFDL-CM2.0 and
GFDL-CM2.1].
10. Goddard Institute for Space Studies, U.S.A. [GISS-AOM, GISS-EH,
and GISS-ER].
11. Institute for Numerical Mathematics, Russia [INM-CM3.0].
12. Institute Pierre Simon Laplace, France [IPSL-CM4].
13. Center for Climate System Research, National Institute for
Environmental Studies,
and Frontier Research Center for Global Change, Japan
[MIROC-CGCM3.2(medres) and
MIROC-CGCM3.2(hires)].
14. Meteorological Research Institute, Japan [MRI-CGCM2.3.2].
15. United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre for Climate
Prediction and
Research, U.K. [UKMO-HadCM3 and UKMO-HadGEM1
>
>Proving that oaks make acorns and acorns make oaks is not an complete
>theory of trees. It's only a hint of what biology is.
Wow, a gerealization to prove that mommy explained the birds and bees.
I'll bet she is so proud.
>
>>Your opportunity to prove your "common sense" trumps the peer reviewed
>>work of 16 scientist and 22 studies:
>
>There you go to exactly what I wrote above. "Peer reviewed." But
>they all get their paychecks from the same place. Everyone of Bush's
>government was sure there was WMD's in Iraq. If you didn't, you were
>"not a team player" and gone. You too are guilty of following the
>herd. You just prefer a different herd. Same effect - lots of stuff
>laying around for honest folk to step on in the dark. And damn costly
>to the people that have to pay for the bogus ideas. Polywater
15 different groups from around the world. I am sure the Max Planck
Institute in Germany is working with the Institute for Atmospheric
Physics in Chica to make sure the global warming conspiracy is well
funded and well stocked with your flawed data. That they insure the
data will always be skewed properly so as to keep 95% of all
climatologists convinced of AGW.
>
>And why then do you dismiss the "peer reviewed" writings that say
>global heating/warming/cooling/kinda flat/whatever is bogus?
Here, show where I did what you claim, provide one iota of evidence to
support another of your lies:
You won't. But then the only evidence of anthing you have provided is
a report that some fuckwit claims data is being hidden. No proof, just
a claim.
>Or those
>that don't say bogus, but don't make the same end of the world if we
>don't give Gore money predictions you like?
I find the evidence overwhelming that the current climatological
models are correct. The result of not acting, if the models are
correct, is death of humanity. I find that to be an even more
overwhelming argument. Since the models indicate that the latter is
more than just a possibility I gotta go with the climatologists.
But then, lets heat up some of that methane that sits essentially
frozen on the bottom of the oceans? Since methane has 30 times the
effect of CO2 I'll bet that won't be a good effect from the warming
seas.
>
>See, I asked you that question without demeaning your mental
>abilities. I'm not expecting you will return the favor, however.
No, you are stupid. That isn't demeaning you, it is stating a fact.
You don't like facts, that is quite evident. That you cannot deal with
science unless it fits your world view only shows how little critical
thinking skills you have.
Aratzio
>What did you do with the money your mother gave your for courtesy
>lessons? "Ids da gubbermint!"? What on Earth are you talking about
>now? LDS, lids, ideas??????
The favorite game of wingnuts, Playing Stupid. But then its the only
game they know they can always win.
>
>>>Say hello to Hope and Faith if you see them. I'd ask you to say hello
>>>to their sister, Transparency, but I don't think she lives here
>>>anymore.
>>
>>And yet you still cannot refute even one scientific study. All your
>>arm waving and histrionics cannot make up for your turning tail and
>>running from the field.
>
>Oh, oh. I was wrong. There is still more spew in this young lad. So
>angry. I hope he outgrows it when he gets big.
Yes, that whole pointing out your cowardice was so unseemly. Shame on
me for even noticing that you had performed in such a craven manner. I
am sure in your version of polite society adults turn a blind eye to
the virtual peeing of pants by their *pee-ers*. I'll try to keep in
mind just how sensitive of a victim you are and how disturbing it is
for you to have to face your own actions.
Not Sure
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:39:58 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> writing:
>
>
>
> >You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.
>
> The typical wingnut when faced with actual peer reviewed science:
Science that we now know, thanks to those damning emails, was
completely fixed. And so close to Copenhagen too? Could the global
warming liars have performed any worse? :)
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>The favorite game of wingnuts, Playing Stupid. But then its the only
>>game they know they can always win.
>
>>Yes, that whole pointing out your cowardice was so unseemly. Shame on
>>me for even noticing that you had performed in such a craven manner. I
>>am sure in your version of polite society adults turn a blind eye to
>>the virtual peeing of pants by their *pee-ers*. I'll try to keep in
>>mind just how sensitive of a victim you are and how disturbing it is
>>for you to have to face your own actions.
>
>I guess I'm mostly wondering why I'm still bothering with a pointless,
>name caller. Bye.
They just never can quite get the proper flounce in their exits.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>
>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
Ah, so you didn't read where the data came from, did you. I do note
that the information that told you where the data came from is now
gone. I am sure that was just an oversight on your part. Unless you
are trying to convince yourself that your misrepresentations are
facts.
>
>>"I don't like the data so I will misinterpret the information and make
>>up my own reasons"
>>
>>Wow, that is amazing, have you reported your findings to the NAS? I am
>>sure they are quite interested in how the peer review process broke
>>down in such an obvious manner that would allow someone like you to
>>repudiate years of data in so few "werds".
>>
>>Of course you won't and would even be able to articulate your
>>reasoning in a manner that did not cause the intern/grad student to
>>fall down and hurt themselves laughing at you.
>
>>Not even close. You didn't understand the control, did you?
>
>>No, you are stupid. That isn't demeaning you, it is stating a fact.
>>You don't like facts, that is quite evident. That you cannot deal with
>>science unless it fits your world view only shows how little critical
>>thinking skills you have.
>
>I guess I'm mostly wondering why I'm still bothering with a pointless,
>name caller. Bye.
Once, twice, three times a flouncer.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:45:15 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>>>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>>>line.
>>
>> IOW Science is WAY over the pointed little heads of wingers
>>with tinfoil caps glued on.
>
>Name calling instead of facts.
Which fact?
The tinfoil cap or the pointed little head?
>>>>Now, please feel free to show your chops and refute the science as
>>>>described:
>>>
>>>Please show your chops and prove the science as described. That's
>>>where the burden is.
>>
>> So see the science.
>
>You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.
*So see the science.*
>
>> It's not like endless & clueless winger lies.
>
>Well, there's always name calling for a leftist winger in a corner.
You still have no clues what the subject is about, do you?
But you have Rush & Faux with their 5 letter words & claimed
HS diplomas in speaking or something ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
Typical of the ignorant wingnuts.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The favorite game of wingnuts, Playing Stupid.
They are not playing.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>Really, that is your refutation of actual science, done by actual
>>scientists, peer reviewed by different scientists? A one line non
>>sequitur.
>
>Not really. They all work for the same governments. They have
>careers to think of.
Yep.
If they lied like wingers they would be laughed at & justly fired.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Are you telling us global warming/cooling will not wind up costing
>everyone in the world some of their money?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/051101_insurance_warming.html
"Insurance Company Warns of Global Warming's Costs"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
"Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us"
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.asp
"The Cost of Climate Change" (US Only)
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/299234_climateecon11.html
"Global warming to cost us"
Etc.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>WHEEE, when challenged, lie.
Wingers get caught every time, right?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
>
>"In summary, model fingerprints of the response of atmospheric
>moisture to external forcings are identifiable in observations with
>high statistical confidence," The model made from the observations
>correlates with the observations the model was made from. Well, OK.
>Circular, but true.
"External forcings" are the added watts.
The response is an effect of that cause.
--
Cliff
Cliff
> Everyone of Bush's
>government was sure there was WMD's in Iraq.
It was all faith-based you say?
Then why did they have to fabricate lies?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>And damn costly
>to the people that have to pay for the bogus ideas. Polywater
Which was never a serious idea.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>And why then do you dismiss the "peer reviewed" writings that say
>global heating/warming/cooling/kinda flat/whatever is bogus?
What writings might those be?
And what zoo did those claimed "peers" escape from?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>lots of stuff
>laying around for honest folk to step on in the dark.
Winger crap.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>
>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
>
>>"I don't like the data so I will misinterpret the information and make
>>up my own reasons"
>>
>>Wow, that is amazing, have you reported your findings to the NAS? I am
>>sure they are quite interested in how the peer review process broke
>>down in such an obvious manner that would allow someone like you to
>>repudiate years of data in so few "werds".
>>
>>Of course you won't and would even be able to articulate your
>>reasoning in a manner that did not cause the intern/grad student to
>>fall down and hurt themselves laughing at you.
>
>>Not even close. You didn't understand the control, did you?
>
>>No, you are stupid. That isn't demeaning you, it is stating a fact.
>>You don't like facts, that is quite evident. That you cannot deal with
>>science unless it fits your world view only shows how little critical
>>thinking skills you have.
>
>I guess I'm mostly wondering why I'm still bothering with a pointless,
>name caller. Bye.
IOW You have no facts, reasoning or logic.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Dec 19, 9:15�am, Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:39:58 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>> Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>
>>
>> >You can't prove a damn thing, huh? � Hope and Faith are great girls.
>>
>> The typical wingnut when faced with actual peer reviewed science:
>
>Science that we now know, thanks to those damning emails, was
>completely fixed. And so close to Copenhagen too? Could the global
>warming liars have performed any worse? :)
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1599182467/Lyons-Weathering-a-storm-of-stupidity
[
"(...) the spread of secondary and latterly tertiary education has created a
large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly
tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical
thought." - P.B. Medawar
So what's next? A series of essays by Sarah Palin about the Large Hadron
Collider and the mysteries of dark matter? An MIT lecture series by Rush
Limbaugh regarding the thermodynamics of black holes? A Festschrift of Sean
Hannity's scholarly articles on plate tectonics and volcano formation? Glenn
Beck performing live heart-lung transplants on Fox News?
Everybody understands that these things couldn't happen. That when it comes to
serious scientific endeavor, years of study and professional apprenticeship are
required. In a word, expertise. Ex-beauty contestants, drive-time DJs, TV sports
announcers, hairstylists, newspaper columnists - basically anybody whose math
skills topped out in the 10th grade - rarely have anything substantive to add to
the sum of technical and scientific knowledge. That's what they most resent
about it.
It's not impossible that such persons could educate themselves sufficiently to
have an informed opinion, but it's rare.
.......
Unless and until, that is, scientific endeavor impinges upon either (a)
religious belief, or (b) the ability of tycoons to keep making money in
precisely the way they (or their ancestors) have always made their money. Then
it's every man (or woman) a climatologist, and every genuine expert an "elitist"
enemy of God and the American Way - creationism with a thermometer.
Charles P. Pierce describes what he calls the "Three Great Premises" of talk
radio populism in his acerbic book "Idiot America." ("First Great Premise: Any
theory is valid if it moves units... Second Great Premise: Anything can be true
if someone says it loudly enough... Third Great Premise: Fact is that which
enough people believe. Truth is measured by how fervently they believe it."
So it was after thousands of private e-mails hacked from the University of East
Anglia Climatic Research Unit in England emerged via the right-wing noise
machine into the British and American press.
......
Within days, representatives of various Exxon- and Koch Industries-funded
propaganda shops like the Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise
Institute started braying about "Climategate." Fox News headlined "Global
Warming's Waterloo." The aforementioned Hannity told viewers, "Now we find out
that this institute is hiding from the people of Great Britain and the world
that, in fact, climate change is a hoax, something I've been saying for a long
time."
Taking time off from her book tour, Sarah Palin wrote a Washington Post piece
charging the "e-mails reveal that leading climate 'experts' deliberately
destroyed records, manipulated data to 'hide the decline' in global
temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from
publishing in peer-reviewed journals."
Note the scare quotes around "experts." Palin's evidence for this conspiracy?
Here's the worst of it: A 10-year-old e-mail from professor Phil Jones to Penn
State colleague Michael Mann. You've seen it 10 times on television. "I've just
completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the
last 20 years ... to hide the decline."
Read it twice. So Jones brags about hiding a decline in global temperatures by
"adding in the real temps?" The allegation's nonsensical on its face. If you
read the entire message, Jones is talking about plotting a more accurate graph
by throwing out inferential evidence from tree ring studies known since the
1960s to be less reliable. There's an elaborate scientific debate about why.
.....
]
Aratzio
Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:37:12 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
>>>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>>>
>>>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
>
>
>> IOW You have no facts, reasoning or logic.
>
>Here's some.
>
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
That again is n9ot "evidence". Care to try again where you supply the
coutervailingt evidence that the current scientific models are in some
way inaccurate or will in themselves lead to any sort of damage to the
biosphere:
Your <evidence goes here>
(He won't he does not have any)
Aratzio
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
>know.
>By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"
Ignore for the fact that it would require an active conspiracy of
literally millions of individuals to actually pull off what your
"author" claims, it is just one person. The unsupported claims of a
single person does not make a conspiracy real.
If humans are a cause of global warming, then we can do something to
slow or halt the process. If we are not, moving to renewable resources
and banking the non-renewable resources is just good business.
Most of the windnuts just ignore the national security aspects of
carbon fuel importation and how that places us at the mercy of the oil
producing countries of the world. If we are independant of them, we
don't need to be in places like Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Aratzio
>Yes. It seems you do.
"I know you are but what am I?"
HH&C
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:37:12 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> >>Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Really, you think that is what it says? Seriously? 22 different
> >>>studies are circular? Peer review didn't catch that?
>
> >>Not when the peers are doing the same thing for the same paycheck.
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
> How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
> know.
> By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
>
> now-famous hacking of emails from the University of East Anglia
> Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Most see the contents as demonstrating
> some arbitrary manipulating of various climate data sources in order
> to fit preconceived hypotheses (true), or as stonewalling and
> requesting colleagues to destroy emails to the United Nations
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the face of
> potential or actual Freedom of Information requests (also true).
>
> But there's something much, much worse going on—a silencing of climate
> scientists, akin to filtering what goes in the bible, that will have
> consequences for public policy, including the Environmental Protection
> Agency's (EPA) recent categorization of carbon dioxide as a
> "pollutant."
>
> The bible I'm referring to, of course, is the refereed scientific
> literature. It's our canon, and it's all we have really had to go on
> in climate science (until the Internet has so rudely interrupted).
> When scientists make putative compendia of that literature, such as is
> done by the U.N. climate change panel every six years, the writers
> assume that the peer-reviewed literature is a true and unbiased sample
> of the state of climate science.
>
> That can no longer be the case. The alliance of scientists at East
> Anglia, Penn State and the University Corporation for Atmospheric
> Research (in Boulder, Colo.) has done its best to bias it.
>
> A refereed journal, Climate Research, published two particular papers
> that offended Michael Mann of Penn State and Tom Wigley of the
> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. One of the papers,
> published in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), was a meta-analysis of
> dozens of "paleoclimate" studies that extended back 1,000 years. They
> concluded that 20th-century temperatures could not confidently be
> considered to be warmer than those indicated at the beginning of the
> last millennium.
>
> In fact, that period, known as the "Medieval Warm Period" (MWP), was
> generally considered warmer than the 20th century in climate textbooks
> and climate compendia, including those in the 1990s from the IPCC.
>
> Then, in 1999, Mr. Mann published his famous "hockey stick" article in
> Geophysical Research Letters (GRL), which, through the magic of
> multivariate statistics and questionable data weighting, wiped out
> both the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent "Little Ice Age" (a
> cold period from the late 16th century to the mid-19th century),
> leaving only the 20th-century warming as an anomaly of note.
>
> Messrs. Mann and Wigley also didn't like a paper I published in
> Climate Research in 2002. It said human activity was warming surface
> temperatures, and that this was consistent with the mathematical form
> (but not the size) of projections from computer models. Why? The
> magnitude of the warming in CRU's own data was not as great as in the
> models, so therefore the models merely were a bit enthusiastic about
> the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
>
> Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research
> out of business. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the
> climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in,
> this journal," he wrote in one of the emails. "We would also need to
> consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who
> currently sit on the editorial board."
>
> After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and
> reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People
> who didn't toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones's line began to
> experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.
>
> This happened to me and to the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer,
> who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest.
> Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good
> work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has
> disappeared from the scientific scene.
>
> GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that
> one of the editors was "in the skeptics camp." He emailed Michael Mann
> to say that "if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go
> through official . . . channels to get him ousted."
>
> Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that "It's one thing to
> lose 'Climate Research.' We can't afford to lose GRL." In this
> context, "losing" obviously means the publication of anything that
> they did not approve of on global warming.
>
> Soon the suspect editor, Yale's James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote
> to the CRU's Phil Jones that "the GRL leak may have been plugged up
> now w/ new editorial leadership there."
>
> It didn't stop there. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National
> Laboratory complained that the Royal Meteorological Society (RMS) was
> now requiring authors to provide actual copies of the actual data that
> was used in published papers. He wrote to Phil Jones on March 19,
> 2009, that "If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data
> available—raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations—I
> will not submit any further papers to RMS journals."
>
> Messrs. Jones and Santer were Ph.D. students of Mr. Wigley. Mr. Santer
> is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009,
> wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a
> scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global
> Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost
> primary warming data.
>
> The result of all this is that our refereed literature has been
> inestimably damaged, and reputations have been trashed. Mr. Wigley
> repeatedly tells news reporters not to listen to "skeptics" (or even
> nonskeptics like me), because they didn't publish enough in the
> peer-reviewed literature—even as he and his friends sought to make it
> difficult or impossible to do so.
>
> Ironically, with the release of the Climategate emails, the Climatic
> Research Unit, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley have
> dramatically weakened the case for emissions reductions. The EPA
> claimed to rely solely upon compendia of the refereed literature such
> as the IPCC reports, in order to make its finding of endangerment from
> carbon dioxide. Now that we know that literature was biased by the
> heavy-handed tactics of the East Anglia mob, the EPA has lost the
> basis for its finding.
>
> Mr. Michaels, formerly professor of environmental sciences at the
> University of Virginia (1980-2007), is a senior fellow at the Cato
> Institute.
I recall that Bush was blamed for the suppression of scientific
opinion.
Well now, it would appear that AGW scientific opinon has graduated to
a belief sysem, i.e., a religion and a church.
HH&C
> Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
>
> >What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
> >one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
>
> your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
> many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
> easily dismiss.
>
> >Your <evidence goes here>
> >(He won't he does not have any)
>
> Your <evidence goes here>
i.e., a religion.
HH&C
> Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
> >How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
> >is the same fellow who, in an email to Phil Jones on Oct. 9, 2009,
> >wrote that he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap" out of me at a
> >scientific meeting. He was angry that I published "The Dog Ate Global
> >Warming" in National Review, about CRU's claim that it had lost
> >primary warming data.
>
> The Dog Ate Global Warming
> have been fiddled?
> By Patrick J. Michaels
>
> Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface
> temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have
> no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a
> historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this
> U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate
> deal in Copenhagen in December.
>
> Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify
> the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
>
> Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some
> discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened,
> and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no
> sense.
>
> In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy,
> scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia
> established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s
> first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the
> trade as the "Jones and Wigley" record for its authors, Phil Jones and
> Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the
> U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It
> was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a "discernible human
> influence on global climate."
>
> Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations
> weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones
> were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow
> into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records.
> Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature.
> Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke
> Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as
> in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high
> temperatures are bound to be recorded.
>
> So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that
> are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original
> records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what
> was done to which station in order to produce their record, which,
> according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th
> century.
>
> Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered
> where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early
> 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow
> scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or
> so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,
> when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
>
> Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific
> thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find
> something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so
> well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.
>
> Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster
> told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw
> data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a
> Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having
> been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his
> analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he
> couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an "academic." So his
> colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph,
> asked for the data. He was turned down, too.
>
> Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all,
> saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data
> between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog
> readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only
> a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and
> written in very vague language.
>
> It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers
> demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that
> the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we
> could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may
> have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU
> data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to
> warming (while others have found otherwise).
>
> Enter the dog that ate global warming.
>
> Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at
> the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones.
> Jones responded:
>
> Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into
> existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all
> stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record
> should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s
> meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some
> sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity
> issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the
> value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
>
> The statement about "data storage" is balderdash. They got the records
> from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original
> data could easily fit on the 9-inch tape drives common in the
> mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data
> on one such tape in 1979.
>
> If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted
> the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years
> ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After
> all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the
> question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or
> lost, and why?
>
> All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely
> that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from
> its docket this fall - whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection
> Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide
> emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific
> basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science.
> U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
>
> — Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at
> the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming
> Science They Don’t Want You to Know.
Much of what I have previously said about normalizing observational
data, and the "metromex" urban heat island influencing gridded climate
fields is contained above. I watched as satellite data was processed
and made available in the early to mid 80's, and it left a lot to be
desired.
But you guys doubted me.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:35:45 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
>>writing:
>>
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>>>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
>>> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
>>>know.
>>>By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
>>
>>"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"
>
>Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.
Show his evidence beyond claims unsubstantiated. You do know how that
all works?
Even so, that is a personal account, you cannot verify his statements
as accurate beyond your desire to believe him. Nor is the inverse
true. That is why people use provable fact based science to support
their claims of global warming and people like you use "first person"
narratives that have no substantiated support beyond the story teller.
"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"
But I am glad to see you have the integrity to only runaway so far
before backpedalling.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> >
>
>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>>
>>What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
>>one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
>
>One person with your lauded peer reviewed credentials and published in
>your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
>many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
>easily dismiss.
There are zero cites. There are claims. The article has no links to
any substantiated evidence.
<SNIP RESTORE>
:That again is n9ot "evidence". Care to try again where you supply the
:coutervailingt evidence that the current scientific models are in some
:way inaccurate or will in themselves lead to any sort of damage to the
:biosphere:
</SNIP RESTORE>
>
>>Your <evidence goes here>
>>(He won't he does not have any)
>
>Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.
>Your <evidence goes here>
Note he snipped the context of the question so it seems like he didn't
cowardly run and hide, again? All he can supply are a small handful of
commentaries lacking any supportive data based upon claims made in the
first person.
So your evidence that the science is wrong and the current scientific
models are in error?
Gunner Asch
I never did. Its obvious that you are a pro and as such, are the expert
here.
Gunner
"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> >writing:
>>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> >>>writing:
>>>>
>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>>>>>How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
>>>>> The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should
>>>>>know.
>>>>>By PATRICK J. MICHAELS
>>>>
>>>>"I found one person who agrees with me, so I must be right!!!!"
>>>
>>>Demonstrate that even one thing he wrote is wrong.
>>
>>Show his evidence beyond claims unsubstantiated. You do know how that
>>all works?
>
>No, no, no. YOU insisted that I disprove your cites. Now you
>disprove mine.
So, no you do not know how it works. In my links to your whine that
there was no evidence I supplied:
1. a peer reviewed article in one of the most important journals of
science.
2. Evidence of methods
3. Supportive data
4. Conclusions based upon evidence 22 models from 15 modeling groups
worldwide.
You have a whiney little man who didn't get his way burbling
imprecations about people who were mean to him. Nothing but claims and
not a lick of supportive evidence to validate the claims.
Yet you find the complete lack of supportive data to be a plus because
that makes your burbling pantywad a hero to the ignorance over science
crowd.
>
>Alternately, as you want it now, prove by independent means the
>veracity of your cites.
That is called "peer review". It does not matter whether you accept
that or not, the fact it was peer reviewed and published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is independent review.
You can whine all you want that you do not accept that as a fact, but
no amount of foot stomping and histrionics will alter that peer review
is validation of the science.
>
>Much as left wingers like it, you do not get it both ways.
If you were more intelligent you would be able to perceive how little
you know.
>
>>Even so, that is a personal account, you cannot verify his statements
>>as accurate beyond your desire to believe him.
>
>Winger bullshit. He is published in the very same journals you cited
>for your peer reviewed lauded experts what got everything perfect
>beyond debate.
Do you have the links? See you still don't understand how it works. He
*claims* he was published.
>
>Look him up. Look up his papers. Tell us what he did wrong.
Not my responsibility, you are the one that is making the claim. I
gave you validated science based upon 22 models developed by 15 groups
the world over and you have yet to actually find anything wrong with
the conclusions of human based causation other than your makee uppee
claims of circularity. Claims that were simple to disprove and once
disproven you ran away.
Now you want to change the subject from your complete and utter
failure to disprove main stream scientific work with claims that
because one scientist was treated badly that all peer review is wrong
and therefore any peer reviewed article is suspect.
Specious and childish at best.
>
>[Usual left winger name calling and character assassination snipped.]
I'll bet the irony of those words is lost on such a simple mind as
yours. Hypocrisy is your sword and you impale yourself with such
regularity.
Aratzio
>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> >writing:
>>>Aratzio <a6ah...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>>Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> >
>>>
>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular#
>>>>
>>>>What you have is another "claim" unsupported by anything other than
>>>>one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
>>>
>>>One person with your lauded peer reviewed credentials and published in
>>>your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
>>>many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
>>>easily dismiss.
>>
>>There are zero cites. There are claims. The article has no links to
>>any substantiated evidence.
>
>Left winger weasel. He is published in the same journals as your
>peer reviewed "experts". Look him up, disprove what he wrote.
Well, you should have no problem supporting your claims then, right?
You keep dragging out evidence that lacks even the minimal support of
a link. Then when challenged you claim inability to do your own
research.
You claim things exist, you support your claims. I did and you ran for
the hills.
>
>Then once you prove he is wrong you can explain how the same review
>peers left him slip by and published it.
So now you demand that I prove your case for you? Really? You are that
incompetent that you cannot even find the data that supports your own
views and you need others to make up for your lack of ability?
>
>If they are fallible, you can explain how your chosen cites just
>absolutely have to be right and the ones you don't like have to be
>wrong.
Yes, peer review *can* be wrong. But you premise is that because one
or more might be wrong that you can ignore *ALL* peer reviewed data
and just believe what you want to believe.
That is just stupid on so many levels.
>
>Your paper will be graded on neatness and spelling as well as content.
>That way you at least get a couple points.
Will you be now presenting a hissy fit because you failed, again, to
actually support yours or any other claim made with actual evidence?
HH&C
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 10:48:03 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
> writing:
>
> >Aratzio <a6ahly...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >>Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> >
>
> >>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603...
>
> >>one person who may or may not have an axe to grind.
>
> >One person with your lauded peer reviewed credentials and published in
> >your lauded peer reviewed journals. And he is backed up by a great
> >many people with similar credentials as cited in the article you so
> >easily dismiss.
>
> There are zero cites. There are claims. The article has no links to
> any substantiated evidence.
Actually, he refers to the hacked emails, and requests made under FOI.
HH&C
Thank you. I am far from an expert, but I do have experience in the
area.
Needless to say, I almost choked when Curly declared the earth's
climate a closed system
Last Post
• Actually the "Oman Cabal" ordered the IPCC
who sent Jones & Wigley ...
•• [The scientific protocol requires 95 out of one
hundred tries with identical process and
equipment — Yet 'Science' posted articles in
recent memory that had no better than 90%
confidence- LP]
•• Not Me!!
I will post the details of the 'Oman Cabal'
in my next post
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Steve B
Some poor schmuck(s) cut and pasted and threaded .......
>>> - Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at
>>> the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming
>>> Science They Don't Want You to Know.
>>
>>Much of what I have previously said about normalizing observational
>>data, and the "metromex" urban heat island influencing gridded climate
>>fields is contained above. I watched as satellite data was processed
>>and made available in the early to mid 80's, and it left a lot to be
>>desired.
>>
>>But you guys doubted me.
We humbly bow at the altar of your intellectual superiority, or vocabulary,
I'm not sure.
In the meantime, I really don't give a fuck. Get a life.
We can go back and examine ancient tree rings, and other "true" scientific
data and identify climate cycles that go back many century, and at times
geological eras of history. Yet, we have this small window of maybe 200
years in the recent past that we can not honestly evaluate and study the
climate. And that's because the conclusion has been reached, and all that
is left to do is find "facts and statistics" that support that conclusion.
That is outside the parameters of "science."
Steve
Last Post
> Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
> > I will post the details of the 'Oman Cabal'
> > in my next post
>
of Winnie Poo's pomposity
> I don't normally encourage crossposting of the first post in a thread,
> but please include m.s in the list so we can see it too.
• I don't give 2 hoots in Hell for whatever you do or
don't encourage. You have zero input or influence
on control or regulation of usenet, whereas I have
had some minor part. Your post above is the first
post by you that was even worth reading.
Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection
By James Delingpole Politics
December 18th, 2009
Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a
British Climate research business?
Oman has just completed a massive investment in LNG,
and developed and installed new CO2 removal
technology in their process; this lowers the carbon
footprint of their gas. So using their gas to drive
electricity generation will be less costly once CO2 is
taxed. They have no problem with this whole thing.
Saudi Arabia, who have oil and not so much gas, are in
a different position, they have a problem with this
whole thing.
Just an observation; a 4 degree rise in temperature in
the Sultanate of Oman or Saudi Arabia would change
it from really hot to really hot.
Maybe it is just good business.
Oman LNG L.L.C
Formed: Set up by Royal Decree in February 1994.
Location: Head office:
Muscat; Plant: Qalhat near Sur
(approx 340 km from Muscat)
Products: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).
Shareholders: Government of Oman 51 %, Royal
Dutch/Shell Group 30%, Total Elf Fina 5.54%,
KOLNG 5%, Partex 2% Mitsubishi 2.77%, Mitsui
2.77%, ltochu 0.92%.
The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK was set up
in 1971 with funding from Shell and BP as is described
in the book: “The history of the University of East
Anglia, Norwich; Page 285)” By Michael Sanderson.
The CRU was still being funded in 2008 by Shell, BP,
the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex
LTD (the nuclear waste people in the UK)
This is important to know, for two reasons.
Firstly, the key institution providing support for Global
Warming theories and the basis for the IPCC findings
receives funding from “Big Oil” and the nuclear power
industry.
Secondly, the research from the institution which is
perceived to be independent publicly funded research,
is actually beholden to soft money, CRU is in fact a
business.
The funders of the CRU are on the bottom of this page
from their website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080627194858/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
So, there a business set up in the early 1970’s, so what?
I thought that this might explain a bit about how we got
to where we are. I am not a conspiracy theorist but to
me it looks like this may have been a very, very long
term plan. Of course it could all just be coincidental,
but it does seem to fit the observable information.
A few weeks ago I explained the apparent CRU fraud to
a friend of mine, a believer in AGW; he said ‘Why
would they do it?’ I indicated the Jones had received
22 million, etc, but he countered, ‘For a fraud this
large, going on for this long, there would have to be
billions of dollars to be made, not millions’. That
made sense.
So I looked into it a bit. First this is no short term thing,
it covers two or three decades, involves many countries
and government on both sides of the isle, the US alone
has had 4 different presidents and the UK a similar
number of prime ministers, Canada the same. So is it
not political in the partisan sense of the word.
If, and this is a big if, you make the assumption that
the objectives were:
1. Provide a smooth replacement of the use of oil in
power generation and transportation, so as to
avoid a panic over Peak Oil.
2. Get people to buy into Nuclear Power so that base
load electrical power generation would not
consume the available fossil fuel supply.
3. Get the people to really want to pay for it all.
Note: The IEA put a date on peak oil production THIS
WEEK, so if the CO2 scare does not pan out they are
already starting to put the ‘Peak Oil’ story into play. It
is also the 2020 date, why am I not surprised.
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15...
Then the following is not unbelievable.
The newer scrubber technology for coal fired plants was
moving along well back then, and in fact today their
scrubbers can remove pretty much everything except
CO2. However there is really not much money in coal,
it is abundant, easy to handle, local in most instance to
the base load demand for electricity, and a coal fired
power plant is not much more complicated, or
expensive, than a good steam engine.
Since there was not enough money in coal it would not
be financially rewarding to simply try to promote coal
as a replacement for oil.
So they looked at the situation and realized that the
difference between the different technologies to
replace base load power generation was the amount
of CO2 per kilowatt/hour.
At that point CO2 became the target. That happened
sometime between 1985 and 1988.
Now, the environmental movement is comprised mostly
of followers, you can look up ‘dihydrogen monoxide’
(water), on many occasions at environmental
conferences comedians and light news organizations
have managed to get lots of environmentalists to sign a
petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide. So apparently
they do not do a lot of independent analysis before
making a conclusion, they are mostly followers.
So if you need a large number of followers, there is a
ready supply, but you need people, a few leaders, to
tell the followers what to think. The followers do not
need to, or perhaps even want to, know the reason
or the facts; they just need something or someone to
follow.
Now you gain control of a climate research business,
and begin the task of demonizing CO2, you realize
that it will take years but that is OK, there are billions of
dollars waiting at the end. Slowly over time you manage
to get control of the worlds climate data and begin
adjusting it, you use what you have been told by the
marketing people to present the information needed in
as clear and scary manager as is possible. Remember the
two biggest motivators are fear and greed, and in this
case, because of the number of followers greed will not
work. There are simply too many followers to pay them
all off.
So there we have it, a campaign of fear, based on non-
science emanating from a few leaders that ultimately
drive the followers to do something that would just not
have been possible after Three Mile Island.
They are marching in the streets of Copenhagen in
support of nuclear power. They do not know this of
course, but that is what the plan on the table says.
Check it out, look at exactly what are the big
technologies being pushed at the summit. I will give
you a hint, it is not windmills.