OT; Global Warming debate battle over, Skeptics win due to hacked files and emails of alarmists
Brandii
computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
in recent years). Too funny.
The alarmists are in major firecontrol mode, trying their best to
dismiss the news as not changing anything (who'd a thunk that?).
Several news outlets are featuring articles on it (Drudge,NYT,
WSJ, Fox). Read for yourselves.
The data has been confirmed to be real.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/wsj-picks-up-story-on-their-blog/
Warmest regards,
Busted
ramashiva
> The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> in recent years). Too funny.
Why are you continuing to repeat this discredited nonsense??? There
has been no decline in global temperatures in recent years. Here is
the basic fact --
If you plot average global temperature as a function of time, then the
ten-year least squares line which INCLUDES 1998 has a positive slope,
indicating the warming trend is continuing.
I posted authoritative links with graphs and everything, yet here you
are repeating the same debunked lie.
Stop lying.
Get a life.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> in recent years). Too funny.
> The alarmists are in major firecontrol mode, trying their best to
> dismiss the news as not changing anything (who'd a thunk that?).
> Several news outlets are featuring articles on it (Drudge,NYT,
> WSJ, Fox). Read for yourselves.
> The data has been confirmed to be real.
Bullshit. We don't even know if the emails are authentic, and most of
them date back a few years. They are not contemporary, as you
suggest.
You are suffering from a severe case of cranio-rectal insertion. The
cure is to read facts, not the propaganda which you relentlessly spew.
Start reading www.realclimate.org for real facts from real climate
scientists. Here is what the Real Climate Scientists have to say
about this latest hacking kerfuffle --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853
The CRU hack
Filed under: Climate Science— group @ 20 November 2009
As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the
University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite
some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing
to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate
institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of
computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless
of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without
permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the
emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last
Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to
RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach
later that day.
Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly
edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12)
are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some
of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first
RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include
discussions we’ve had with the CRU folk on topics related to the
surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to
ensure that posting were accurate.
Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them
are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they
would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no
shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high
regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and
Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers
were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been
published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the
literature (though possibly less bluntly).
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no
evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros
nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the
MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the
falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/
communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down
to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the
conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that
is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint
publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big
picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in
‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the
misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining
when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they
have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense.
None of this should be shocking.
It’s obvious that the noise-generating components of the blogosphere
will generate a lot of noise about this. but it’s important to
remember that science doesn’t work because people are polite at all
times. Gravity isn’t a useful theory because Newton was a nice person.
QED isn’t powerful because Feynman was respectful of other people
around him. Science works because different groups go about trying to
find the best approximations of the truth, and are generally very
competitive about that. That the same scientists can still all agree
on the wording of an IPCC chapter for instance is thus even more
remarkable.
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha”
phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning
quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature
reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick
of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie
from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The
paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper
on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’
is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so
that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use
the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”,
rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing
problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known
that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges
from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known
as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this
paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in
Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always
recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so
while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is
‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely
appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental.
But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal
emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence
for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t
much to it.
There are of course lessons to be learned. Clearly no-one would have
gone to this trouble if the academic object of study was the mating
habits of European butterflies. That community’s internal discussions
are probably safe from the public eye. But it is important to remember
that emails do seem to exist forever, and that there is always a
chance that they will be inadvertently released. Most people do not
act as if this is true, but they probably should.
It is tempting to point fingers and declare that people should not
have been so open with their thoughts, but who amongst us would really
be happy to have all of their email made public?
Let he who is without PIN cast the the first stone.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Brandii
HEY DUMBASS. The email is where the two top alarmists(Michael Mann and
Phil Jones) ADMIT that the temps have been declining.
Here, der Spiegel in Germany has an article where Germany's top
alarmists are suppossedly "baffles" by the lull in warming. From the
article;
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms
meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-
known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a
plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to
face that fact.”
Did you read that moron? They have faced the facts that warming has
stopped. But not the great tree climber Ramashitforbrains.
again
Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the
temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument
about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”
Troll!
Brandii
> On Nov 21, 12:27 am, Brandii <bust.edin.ve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> > computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> > files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> > methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> > A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> > reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> > smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> > One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> > discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> > in recent years). Too funny.
> > The alarmists are in major firecontrol mode, trying their best to
> > dismiss the news as not changing anything (who'd a thunk that?).
> > Several news outlets are featuring articles on it (Drudge,NYT,
> > WSJ, Fox). Read for yourselves.
> > The data has been confirmed to be real.
>
> Bullshit. We don't even know if the emails are authentic, and most of
> them date back a few years. They are not contemporary, as you
> suggest.
>
> You are suffering from a severe case of cranio-rectal insertion. The
> cure is to read facts, not the propaganda which you relentlessly spew.
>
> scientists. Here is what the Real Climate Scientists have to say
> about this latest hacking kerfuffle --
>
Ramashitforbrains said'
Bullshit. We don't even know if the emails are authentic, and most
of
> them date back a few years.
Here moron, read. Phil Jones (The head of UoEA) has admitted the
emails are genuine.
Plonk!
ramashiva
> On Nov 21, 2:36 am, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 12:27 am, Brandii <bust.edin.ve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> > > computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> > > files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> > > methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> > > A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> > > reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> > > smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> > > One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> > > discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> > > in recent years). Too funny.
> > Why are you continuing to repeat this discredited nonsense??? There
> > has been no decline in global temperatures in recent years. Here is
> > the basic fact --
> > If you plot average global temperature as a function of time, then the
> > ten-year least squares line which INCLUDES 1998 has a positive slope,
> > indicating the warming trend is continuing.
> > I posted authoritative links with graphs and everything, yet here you
> > are repeating the same debunked lie.
> > Stop lying.
> > Get a life.
> HEY DUMBASS. The email is where the two top alarmists(Michael Mann and
> Phil Jones) ADMIT that the temps have been declining.
> Here, der Spiegel in Germany has an article where Germany's top
> alarmists are suppossedly "baffles" by the lull in warming. From the
> article;
> “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms
> meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
> in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-
> known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a
> plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to
> face that fact.”
> Did you read that moron? They have faced the facts that warming has
> stopped. But not the great tree climber Ramashitforbrains.
> again
> Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the
> temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument
> about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”
> Troll!
Fuck you, you lying scumbag bitch. There has been no decline in
global temperatures in recent years. Nor has there been a pause in
the warming trend. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or
misinformed.
Here are the actual facts. Please note the graph of global
temperatures over time. In particular, please note the ten-year least
squares line which includes 1998. The slope of the line is positive.
That means the warming trend is continuing. There has been no decline
in global temperatures in recent years.
You and the entire right-wing noise machine can continue repeating
this lie. Your lies will not change the actual facts.
Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Before you dismiss Real Climate as global warming propaganda, I
suggest you look at the credentials of the scientists behind the blog
--
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/
These men all have impeccable credentials as climate scientists. What
they publish on the Real Climate blog represents the overwhelming
consensus of actual climate scientists with actual academic
credentials. Most of the people you tend to quote are oil company
shills with no relevant academic credentials.
Yes, there are a few legitimate climate scientists who disagree with
the scientific consensus. They are a very small minority. Quoting
these global warming skeptics doesn't change the fact that the
overwhelming consensus is that global warming is real and that human
burning of fossil fuels is an important contributing factor.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Tad Perry
news:95b27ef0-1ce6-4c0e...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I'll give you the information even though you never use it.
There has been an endothermic reaction taking place at the sub-zero bottom
layer of ocean water that has been taking up the excess heat energy. This
reaction was triggered when the oceans reached abnormally high temperatures
at the height of the last El Nino cycle ranging from 1999 to 2000. Much
energy will go into returning this water to a normal liquid state, but as
that progresses, the temperatures will quickly rise again when that energy
is no longer needed for that reaction.
There is an associated problem that is serious: A consequence of this
super-cooled layer of water returning to a normal liquid state is the
release of large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, which is very
problematic. The lower the carbon emissions, the longer this will take. If
we could all manage to be carbon footprint positive (a very difficult
proposition involving giving up automobiles for instance) it could be
halted, and even reversed.
At the current trajectory, overall warming will return within two years.
Separately, astronomers are reporting that the sun is having a large impact
on our climate that is not even completely understood. You might assume that
explains everything, but it is more of a compounding factor that we just do
not need right now and that has not been accurately factored into the
equation. It could make things far worse, right at a time when we didn't
need them to be any worse.
Meanwhile, there is a certain irony in that there is a clear purity of
philosophy behind a solar only future.
Do you have any idea what a mirror array heating a water-filled vessel can
accomplish?
tvp
~M~
news:9c19ea42-d491-49b4...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 21, 1:21 am, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
Before you dismiss Real Climate as global warming propaganda, I
suggest you look at the credentials of the scientists behind the blog
--
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contributor-bios/
> These men all have impeccable credentials as climate scientists.
As men whose careers are based on climate change paranoia.
--
"I get off on pictures of beautiful women unintentionally exposing their
nipples."
- William Coleman (ramshiva) 4/26/2009
Irish Mike
> The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> in recent years). Too funny.
> The alarmists are in major firecontrol mode, trying their best to
> dismiss the news as not changing anything (who'd a thunk that?).
> Several news outlets are featuring articles on it (Drudge,NYT,
> WSJ, Fox). Read for yourselves.
> The data has been confirmed to be real.
>
>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/
>
>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
>
> http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/wsj-picks-up-story-on-their-blog/
Doesn't surprise me. There were a lot of us who knew the whole global
warming hysteria was a bullshit scam from the beginning.
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
Translation: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the
great and powerful Wizard of Oz and I say global warming is real. BTW, do
not believe those ACORN tapes either. They were all fakes created by the
VRWC. You can trust ACORN and you can trust Al Gore.
LMAO!
Irish Mike
Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people. It
makes Bernard Madoff look like a crooked Girl Scout selling over priced
cookies.
------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:9c19ea42-d491-49b4...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 1:21 am, ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
> Before you dismiss Real Climate as global warming propaganda, I
> suggest you look at the credentials of the scientists behind the blog
> --
> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/contrib...
> > These men all have impeccable credentials as climate scientists.
> As men whose careers are based on climate change paranoia.
You have already established beyond any doubt you are an idiot. No
further proof is necessary.
These men are among the world's leading climatologists. They are
interested in wherever the facts lead them, not in promulgating some
predetermined global warming agenda. You are the one who is paranoid
to suggest that these scientists are paranoid propagandists, rather
than scientists interested in the truth.
You really think there is some grand conspiracy among thousands of
climatologists to deceive the entire world into believing in global
warming???
Seriously, do you???
Just how big of a nutcase are you???
If you had ever actually read any of the global warming science, you
would know that the findings are expressed as probabilities, not
certainties. It is very probable, though not certain. that global
warming is occurring. It is very probable, though not certain, that
humans burning fossil fuels are a major contributing factor.
These conclusions are based on number crunching huge data sets. As
more and more data are collected, the conclusions become more and more
certain. All this science is played out in refereed journals. While
there is overwhelming agreement on the basic conclusions of global
warming science, there is considerable quibbling about the details.
Your whole problem is that you reject the notion that there is such a
thing as a negative externality which cannot be corrected by free
market capitalism, unless government provides the necessary
regulations and incentives. Newsflash!!! Capitalism is not a perfect
economic system. Capitalism produces negative unintended
consequences, like global warming, which can only be addressed by
governmental intervention. The horror!!!
Stop worshipping at the altar of capitalism and start living in the
real world. Stop thinking that pure laissez-faire capitalism with no
government interference produces the best of all possible worlds. It
doesn't. Pure capitalism produces hell on earth for all but a small
minority.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> Doesn't surprise me. There were a lot of us who knew the whole global
> warming hysteria was a bullshit scam from the beginning.
No, you did not know that, because it is not a scam. It is the truth,
truth you desperately want to hide so you won't have to admit that
capitalism is not a perfect economic system, but a system which
produces negative externalities like global warming. The free market
system can do nothing to address the problems of global warming until
government provides appropriate regulation and incentives.
That's what is really going on here. A bunch of religious nutcases
like you worship at the altar of pure capitalism. You worship a false
god.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> On Nov 21 2009 5:21 AM, ramashiva wrote:
> > Fuck you, you lying scumbag bitch. There has been no decline in
> > global temperatures in recent years. Nor has there been a pause in
> > the warming trend. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or
> > misinformed.
> Translation: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. I am the
> great and powerful Wizard of Oz and I say global warming is real.
Hey numbnuts, I thought you had me killfiled. You lying piece of
dogshit.
No, I do not say global warming is real. The facts say that. You
know, facts? Those things with which you have no acquaintance. Why
don't you look at some facts for once and look at the graph I linked
which shows exactly what I say it shows???
> BTW, do not believe those ACORN tapes either. They were all fakes created by the VRWC.
Good job in attributing to me a position I have never stated and do
not hold.
> You can trust ACORN and you can trust Al Gore.
I trust Al Gore. That does not mean I think he is infallible. I do
not trust ACORN. I have made my disapproval of this organization
quite clear.
> LMAO!
> Irish Mike
> Global warming is the biggest scam ever pulled on the American people.
YOU ARE A LIAR, YOU NAZI SCUMBAG.
SIT THE FUCK DOWN.
SHUT THE FUCK UP.
THEN FUCK OFF AND DIE.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
FL Turbo
>about that,� he says. �We have to face that fact.�
>
I have found that it is quite useless to expect any of the AGW
proponents to ever consider any alternate point of view.
They are True Believers.
Any source of skepticism is met with the one of the following
objections.
They are bought and paid for by Big Oil.
The sources do not have the proper academic credentials.
The sources have not gone through the proper "peer review".
There is an "overwhelming consensus" amongst the Real scientists that
have studied the subject all these years.
The site Realclimate is famous for rejecting reader comments that
don't go along with the Program.
The latest release of emails are sure to bring out a flurry of AGW
fanatics telling us:
"Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study
November 21, 2009
Posted by John at 8:18 AM
A fascinating, hot-off-the-presses story emerges from the emails that
were hacked yesterday from the University of East Anglia's Hadley
Climatic Research Centre.
It is one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the
global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over
science.
The story began when Steve McIntyre, the same researcher who was
largely responsible for destroying Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph
purporting to show unprecedented warming in the 20th century, turned
his attention to a famous article published by Keith Briffa of East
Anglia's CRU in 2000.
This article analyzed the diameters of tree rings, including rings
from an area called Yamal in Siberia, and conveniently generated
another hockey-stick shaped graph.
You can read an account of the ensuing controversy here. McIntyre's
work appeared to show that Briffa had cherry-picked trees in order to
get the result he was looking for. One fact that this story highlights
is that global warming alarmists publish their results in scientific
journals, but refuse to make the underlying data publicly available so
that the validity of their analyses can be checked.
McIntyre's revelations caused a firestorm of controversy, in response
to which the alarmist community circled its wagons to fend off the
threat from an outsider. This process can be clearly seen in the East
Anglia emails.
The alarmists' effort to respond to McIntyre was complicated by the
fact that Briffa had been ill and undergone surgery, and was then
recuperating. So several of them wrote to Briffa's co-author, Tim
Osborn, for advice on how to respond to McIntyre's critique. Osborn
replied on September 29, 2009:
Hi Mike and Gavin, thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and
Keith. I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next
speak to Keith. He's been off almost 4 months now and won't be back
for at least another month ....
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing
-- other than that I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was
hand-picked to get the desired result" is complete crap. Having one's
integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil....
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could
shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.
But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be directly
contacted about this....
So: these scientists don't really have any idea whether McIntyre's
critique of Briffa's work is correct or not. Even Briffa's co-author
professes ignorance. There is one person they could approach who could
"shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal." But they don't do
it. Why? Because "he can be rather a loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted...." In other words, his loyalty to the cause of
climate alarmism may not be absolute.
This is much like the case noted here where Michael Mann, one of the
recipients of the above email, warns against sharing information with
a scientist named Andy because he is "not as predictable as we'd
like."
Despite having no idea what the facts are, the alarmists don't
hesitate to formulate a position. Thus, on the next day, September 30,
Osborn writes:
Keith's temporarily come in to get a handle on all this, but it will
take time. Likely outcome is (1) brief holding note that no
cherry-picking was done and demonstrating data selection is defendable
by our time tomorrow; (2) longer piece with more evaluation etc. in
around a week.
No point is posting something that turns out to be wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
There's a whole lot more.
Read the whole thing.
ramashiva
> I have found that it is quite useless to expect any of the AGW
> proponents to ever consider any alternate point of view.
> They are True Believers.
Uhh no. We are believers in reality and facts. You and your fellow
global warming skeptics are the True Believers in a mythical pure
capitalism which produces the best of all possible worlds. The
reality of negative externalities like AGW threatens the foundation of
your entire belief system, so you feel free to lie and deliberately
misrepresent the facts, rather than face the facts.
> Any source of skepticism is met with the one of the following
> objections.
> They are bought and paid for by Big Oil.
> The sources do not have the proper academic credentials.
> The sources have not gone through the proper "peer review".
> There is an "overwhelming consensus" amongst the Real scientists that
> have studied the subject all these years.
And everyone of these statements is factually correct. You seem to
have a real problem with facts.
> The site Realclimate is famous for rejecting reader comments that
> don't go along with the Program.
Oh bullshit. Where do you come up with this utter nonsense?
> The latest release of emails are sure to bring out a flurry of AGW
> fanatics telling us:
> "Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
>
> ------------------------------------------------------http://www.powerlineblog.com/
LOL @ powerline. Figures a Nazi pig like you would quote other Nazi
pigs.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
FL Turbo
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 8:40�am, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>
>> I have found that it is quite useless to expect any of the AGW
>> proponents to ever consider any alternate point of view.
>
>> They are True Believers.
>
>Uhh no. We are believers in reality and facts. You and your fellow
>global warming skeptics are the True Believers in a mythical pure
>capitalism which produces the best of all possible worlds. The
>reality of negative externalities like AGW threatens the foundation of
>your entire belief system, so you feel free to lie and deliberately
>misrepresent the facts, rather than face the facts.
>
Okedokee.
~M~
> These men are among the world's leading climatologists. They are
> interested in wherever the facts lead them, not in promulgating some
> predetermined global warming agenda.
These emails suggest otherwise.
> You really think there is some grand conspiracy among thousands of
> climatologists to deceive the entire world into believing in global
> warming???
Only if you think it is a conspiracy that chiropractors say that they can
fix your back problems, and lawyers tell you you should sue because you fell
in someone's driveway, or door to door vacuum salesmen tell you they have a
better cleaner than you.
More conspiracies include accountants tell you you need help with your
taxes, television networks claiming to have "must see TV" and news
broadcasts telling you that the next story after the commercial break could
change your life.
> Seriously, do you???
I don't think even you believe in your arguments anymore.
> If you had ever actually read any of the global warming science, you
> would know that the findings are expressed as probabilities, not
> certainties. It is very probable, though not certain. that global
> warming is occurring. It is very probable, though not certain, that
> humans burning fossil fuels are a major contributing fact.
Why focus on probabilities when you have certainties?
The certainties are:
Climate change is constant, natural, and beyond our ability to predict.
Climate change is driven my many factors, life being only one, and an
insignificant one at that. This is demonstrated by climate change observed
on neighboring planets that have no life on them.
Climate change is beyond the understanding of you, me, all your scientists,
all my scientists, and even the collective brainpower of RGP. A consensus
cannot be reached even on what climate change is beneficial, and what
climate change is harmful, since what hurts one region will help another.
Since we do not understand climate change, attempts to stop it, control it,
affect it, or reverse it are based in ignorance.
> These conclusions are based on number crunching huge data sets.
Huge, incomplete, and based on assumptions.
> Your whole problem is that you reject the notion that there is such a
> thing as a negative externality
Your whole problem is that you have discovered a negative externality where
it may not even exist.
> Newsflash!!! Capitalism is not a perfect
> economic system. Capitalism produces negative unintended
> consequences, like global warming, which can only be addressed by
> governmental intervention. The horror!!!
When the negative consequenses of government intervention affect you, you
will be too busy building that bust of Al Gore out of boogars to even
notice, because you are bat-shit crazy.
> Pure capitalism produces hell on earth for all but a small
minority.
How would you know?
ramashiva
> "ramashiva" <ramash...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:6e085018-f1df-4620...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > These men are among the world's leading climatologists. They are
> > interested in wherever the facts lead them, not in promulgating some
> > predetermined global warming agenda.
> These emails suggest otherwise.
Really??? "These men" refer to the Real Climate bloggers. Please
cite emails from these scientists which suggest otherwise.
LMFAO!!! Busted again, just making shit up. Have you no shame?
> > You really think there is some grand conspiracy among thousands of
> > climatologists to deceive the entire world into believing in global
> > warming???
> Only if you think it is a conspiracy that chiropractors say that they can
> fix your back problems, and lawyers tell you you should sue because you fell
> in someone's driveway, or door to door vacuum salesmen tell you they have a
> better cleaner than you.
> More conspiracies include accountants tell you you need help with your
> taxes, television networks claiming to have "must see TV" and news
> broadcasts telling you that the next story after the commercial break could
> change your life.
More irrelevant nonsense. How old are you? You write and think like
a retarded adolescent.
> > Seriously, do you???
> I don't think even you believe in your arguments anymore.
At least I have arguments. You have nothing but bullshit and lies.
> > If you had ever actually read any of the global warming science, you
> > would know that the findings are expressed as probabilities, not
> > certainties. It is very probable, though not certain. that global
> > warming is occurring. It is very probable, though not certain, that
> > humans burning fossil fuels are a major contributing fact.
>
> Why focus on probabilities when you have certainties?
> The certainties are:
LOL. There are no certainties in science. You are a complete
scientific illiterate.
> Climate change is constant, natural, and beyond our ability to predict.
> Climate change is driven my many factors, life being only one, and an
> insignificant one at that. This is demonstrated by climate change observed
> on neighboring planets that have no life on them.
> Climate change is beyond the understanding of you, me, all your scientists,
> all my scientists, and even the collective brainpower of RGP. A consensus
> cannot be reached even on what climate change is beneficial, and what
> climate change is harmful, since what hurts one region will help another.
> Since we do not understand climate change, attempts to stop it, control it,
> affect it, or reverse it are based in ignorance.
> > These conclusions are based on number crunching huge data sets.
> Huge, incomplete, and based on assumptions.
All data sets about real world phenomena are incomplete, you fucking
idiot.
> > Your whole problem is that you reject the notion that there is such a
> > thing as a negative externality
> Your whole problem is that you have discovered a negative externality where
> it may not even exist.
Again, there is no such thing as certainty in science. The relevant
statistical analyses show a very small probability that there is no
global warming trend, just short term fluctuations. The same
statistical analyses show there is a very small probability that human
activity does not contribute significantly to global warming.
You and your illiterate ilk are apparently arguing that, because there
is some uncertainty about the reality of AGW, no action should be
taken. This is the purest idiocy.
> > Newsflash!!! Capitalism is not a perfect
> > economic system. Capitalism produces negative unintended
> > consequences, like global warming, which can only be addressed by
> > governmental intervention. The horror!!!
> When the negative consequenses of government intervention affect you, you
> will be too busy building that bust of Al Gore out of boogars to even
> notice, because you are bat-shit crazy.
Apparently you think incoherent babble like the above constitutes
rational argumentation.
> > Pure capitalism produces hell on earth for all but a small minority.
> How would you know?
Because, unlike you, I am a student of history.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BTSinAustin
Snip the blah blah blah
> Here are the actual facts. Please note the graph of global
> temperatures over time. In particular, please note the ten-year least
> squares line which includes 1998. The slope of the line is positive.
> That means the warming trend is continuing. There has been no decline
> in global temperatures in recent years.
>
> You and the entire right-wing noise machine can continue repeating
> this lie. Your lies will not change the actual facts.
>
> Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
>
>
Not the least bit ironic you are posting charts to prove that people who
say the data has been manipulated are wrong? This is reminiscent of Russ
posting a link to a 10 year old post (of his) to prove his point.
You should instead focus your time on the actual emails. Systematic
suppression of dissent and dissenting data. Many examples.
_____________________________________________________________________�
mccard
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:gt8gg59naeggr3b66...@4ax.com...
Truth sucks, huh FT?
ramashiva
> On Nov 21 2009 4:21 AM, ramashiva wrote:
> Snip the blah blah blah
Nothing more juvenile than editorializing in a snip. Just quote what
you want to reply to. Grow the fuck up already.
> > Here are the actual facts. Please note the graph of global
> > temperatures over time. In particular, please note the ten-year least
> > squares line which includes 1998. The slope of the line is positive.
> > That means the warming trend is continuing. There has been no decline
> > in global temperatures in recent years.
> > You and the entire right-wing noise machine can continue repeating
> > this lie. Your lies will not change the actual facts.
> > Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
> >http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
>
> Not the least bit ironic you are posting charts to prove that people who
> say the data has been manipulated are wrong?
Facts are facts, and facts don't lie. The graph for which I posted a
link proves beyond any doubt that there has been no recent pause in
global warming, nor has there been any recent decrease in average
global temperatures. The data on which the graph is based are well
known and not disputed by any reputable climate scientist.
Yet the right-wing noise machine persists in spewing this obvious
completely debunked lie. Why is that??? Because that's all you
idiotic assholes have got. Lies, lies, and more lies.
> This is reminiscent of Russ
> posting a link to a 10 year old post (of his) to prove his point.
> You should instead focus your time on the actual emails. Systematic
> suppression of dissent and dissenting data. Many examples.
You are a pathological liar. You also lack the education to even have
an opinion on these issues.
You idiots can have a hissy fit about these emails all you want. You
can make all the out of context quotes you want to completely
misrepresent what the emails actually say.
None of your lies and bullshit will change the facts. The facts are
clear. Global warming is occurring and human burning of fossil fuels
is a major contributing factor. You will find nothing in these emails
which contradicts these facts.
Tell me, don't you ever get tired of fellating the oil companies? I
cannot imagine surrendering my intellectual independence in order to
push blatant propaganda and lies.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"BTSinAustin" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:a1slt6x...@recgroups.com...
> On Nov 21 2009 4:21 AM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>
> Snip the blah blah blah
>
>> Here are the actual facts. Please note the graph of global
>> temperatures over time. In particular, please note the ten-year least
>> squares line which includes 1998. The slope of the line is positive.
>> That means the warming trend is continuing. There has been no decline
>> in global temperatures in recent years.
>>
>> You and the entire right-wing noise machine can continue repeating
>> this lie. Your lies will not change the actual facts.
>>
>> Here. Choke on this link for awhile --
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
>>
>>
>
> Not the least bit ironic you are posting charts to prove that people who
> say the data has been manipulated are wrong? This is reminiscent of Russ
> posting a link to a 10 year old post (of his) to prove his point.
>
> You should instead focus your time on the actual emails. Systematic
> suppression of dissent and dissenting data. Many examples.
Willie is never wrong - at least he runs away for weeks before he has to
admit it.
BTSinAustin
I think you should go back to your angel of death bullshit. At least you
lack of knowledge of weapons was not as embarrassing as this.
------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
ramashiva
> I think you should go back to your angel of death bullshit. At least you
> lack of knowledge of weapons was not as embarrassing as this.
My lack of knowledge of weapons??? WTF are you talking about???
Embarrassing??? WTF are you talking about??? You are the one who
should be embarrassed. You have the indisputable truth explained to
you in detail, yet you keep repeating the same lies over and over and
over and over.
Seriously, how do you live with yourself?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> Willie is never wrong - at least he runs away for weeks
Newsflash, you psychotic bitch. Not posting for several weeks because
I have more important things to do is not running away.
> before he has to admit it.
What do I have to admit, exactly??? That I am wrong??? What exactly
am I wrong about??? I post indisputable facts and authoritative links
to back up everything I say.
All I get in response is lies and bullshit.
Seriously, Susan. Kill yourself. You are a blight on humanity.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
>Newsflash, you psychotic bitch. Not posting for several weeks because
>I have more important things to do is not running away.
>What do I have to admit, exactly??? That I am wrong??? What exactly
am I wrong about??? I post indisputable facts and authoritative links
>to back up everything I say.
>All I get in response is lies and bullshit.
>Seriously, Susan. Kill yourself. You are a blight on humanity.
>William Coleman (ramashiva)
Come on Paul - you make more sense when you post as Popinjay than as willie.
At least Popinjay has some redeeming qualities (one being a sense of humor,
another NOT being an out and out liar) that your Willie personna will never
have.
ramashiva
> Come on Paul - you make more sense when you post as Popinjay than as willie.
> At least Popinjay has some redeeming qualities (one being a sense of humor,
> another NOT being an out and out liar) that your Willie personna will never
> have.
I have a great sense of humor. You are just too fucking dumb to
understand my humor. I am not a liar, and you are a liar for saying
so. You have knowingly made many false statements about me. You are
a hateful psychotic bitch and a pathological liar.
You know you are lying when you claim Paul and I are the same person.
You just do it because you know it irritates me. That seems to be
your whole life -- irritating me. You have been that way since I
started posting here seven years ago. You are still totally obsessed
with me. You should ask yourself why.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
> You are still totally obsessed with me. You should ask yourself why.
Because I love how you smell? I am so into overweight squishy men who wear
and sleep in the same clothes for days on end and can't go out in public
without packing a gun because they are 'fraid - yep you really turn me on.
And......... I never said I wouldn't reply to you anymore - guess who said
that about my posts. Liar liar
ramashiva
> "ramashiva"
> > You are still totally obsessed with me. You should ask yourself why.
> Because I love how you smell?
You don't know how I smell.
> I am so into overweight squishy men who wear
> and sleep in the same clothes for days on end
I don't wear the same clothes for days on end. Do you never tire of
just making up bullshit lies about me?
> and can't go out in public
> without packing a gun because they are 'fraid
I never pack a gun, Susan. I don't have a concealed carry permit. I
do always have a sizeable arsenal in the trunk of my car, so I can
deal with any possible situation that might arise. That is called
being prepared, not being afraid. Chalk up two more lies you have
told about me.
- yep you really turn me on.
I never said I turned you on. I said you were obsessed with me. Two
completely different things.
> And......... I never said I wouldn't reply to you anymore - guess who said
> that about my posts. Liar liar
Still more lies. I never said "I never said I wouldn't reply to you
anymore." Why are you lying about this???
I just stated a few minutes ago that I had said I wouldn't reply to
you anymore, but I had changed my mind.
You are seriously mentally ill. You deliberately lie by claiming I
said something I never said. You know you are lying. I know you are
lying. You know I know you are lying.
So why do you keep telling these outrageous lies about me?
Answer me that.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Follow
>>> Pure capitalism produces hell on earth for all but a small minority.
>
>> How would you know?
>
> Because, unlike you, I am a student of history.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
History where there has never been a capitalist society? Or a different
history?
Follow :)
ramashiva
> ramashiva wrote:
> >>> Pure capitalism produces hell on earth for all but a small minority.
> >> How would you know?
> > Because, unlike you, I am a student of history.
> History where there has never been a capitalist society? Or a different
> history?
I am thinking specifically about U.S. history circa 1880 to 1933. I
suppose you are going to reply that that was not pure capitalism.
That would be the response of a true believer, not a student of
history.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
susan
"ramashiva"
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
From: ramashiva <ramash...@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Wed, Oct 28 2009 9:44 am
Subject: Re: iF k9WAY HAD MONEY
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Oct 28, 6:28 am, "susan" <hotda...@charter.net> wrote:
> "K9way"
> Doggy - ask him why he needs to carry huge guns everytime he goes out?
Because I am a boy scout. I am prepared for ANYTHING. Two weeks ago
in Tucson, I had my life threatened by two different groups of Mexican
gangbangers who think they own the streets. I made it clear to them
that when I am on the streets, I own the streets. The response was
that they were going to kill me. My response was to pull two .357
revolvers, cock them, point them directly at them, and say --
"Are you, now?"
Their response was to run like scalded rabbits. If I hadn't been
packing those revolvers, I would have gotten blood on the bottoms of
my expensive shoes when I stomped them into greasespots on the ground.
> Takes a real man to do that.
Susan, you have never met a real man in your entire life. Where do
you get the idea that real men do not pack heat? Anyone who does not
arm themselves is a complete fool. Either that, or they are complete
whimps who meekly accept verbal abuse from bullies. I don't take shit
from anyone. Anyone who threatens to kill me gets to look down the
barrel of a .357 magnum revolver or a short-barrelled 12-gauge
shotgun.
There are certain men who should never be fucked with under any
circumstances. I am one of those men. I would just as soon blow your
head off as look at you. Here is truth --
Never throw shit at an armed man.
Never stand next to someone who is throwing shit at an armed man.
You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand.
People who are stupid enough to fuck with me find out very quickly
that is a very bad idea.
> He is so insecure
Idiot. I am not insecure. I am the most secure man on the planet. I
know that no man can kick my ass. If they look like they might be
able to kick my ass, I just pull out a gun and blow their head off.
You have no idea who and what I am, Susan.
> you are the target this week. Once he gives up and
> realizes you aren't going anywhere he will move on to someone else.
Newsflash, Susan. I have been determined to run Dogfucker off the
newsgroup since I came back and found him polluting the newsgroup with
his lies and bullshit. I have published my list of people I am going
to run off the newsgroup. Several of them have already left, in case
you haven't noticed.
Since Russ died, this is my newsgroup (actually Sensei Maverick is the
boss, and Popinjay and I report directly to Sensei), and I will not
tolerate subhuman scumbags like Dogfucker and Bell Dingbat spewing
their idiocy on RGP. They will leave eventually. Just watch and
learn.
Dogfucker may actually be stupid enough to continue booking bets on
RGP after I have given him a direct order to cease and desist. If he
is that stupid, then he will do prison time. Booking sports bets on
the internet is a federal felony.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Follow
> I am thinking specifically about U.S. history circa 1880 to 1933. I
> suppose you are going to reply that that was not pure capitalism.
> That would be the response of a true believer, not a student of
> history.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Was it pure capitalism? With the rules and restraints in place even at
that point in time? With the government interference? You already know
it wasn't, and you want to paint me as a kool aid drinker if I agree
with you.
When capitalism has been attempted and fails, then you can talk about
what a horrible thing it is. Until then, it's just an untested theory
at worst.
Follow :)
~M~
> I am thinking
No fucking way. I know there is a first time for everything, but that time
is not now.
susan
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8sGdnQo51PaI6pXW...@giganews.com...
> "ramashiva" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:679c8ddf-e8ca-4bc7...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I am thinking
>
> No fucking way. I know there is a first time for everything, but that time
> is not now.
Come on - that isn't fair. He has to constantly think to figure out how to
unravel the lies he tells.
ramashiva
> ramashiva wrote:
> > I am thinking specifically about U.S. history circa 1880 to 1933. I
> > suppose you are going to reply that that was not pure capitalism.
> > That would be the response of a true believer, not a student of
> > history.
> Was it pure capitalism? With the rules and restraints in place even at
> that point in time? With the government interference? You already know
> it wasn't, and you want to paint me as a kool aid drinker if I agree
> with you.
> When capitalism has been attempted and fails, then you can talk about
> what a horrible thing it is. Until then, it's just an untested theory
> at worst.
You are the exact counterpart to Communists who shrug off the failure
of the Soviet Union by claiming it wasn't pure communism.
Capitalism of the robber baron era was as close to pure capitalism as
the world will ever see. As I said, that very close approximation of
pure capitalism resulted in hell on earth for all but a small
minority.
The complexities of the modern world make it impossible for the
economy to function without significant government intervention. Your
"pure" capitalism will never happen, so you are in the rather
ridiculous position of advocating an ideology which will never happen.
Historians generally regard this period as the heyday of capitalism.
Capitalism is a fatally flawed ideology which requires significant
government intervention to prevent the most dire predictions of Marx
from becoming reality. FDR was the savior of capitalism, yet he is
vilified by the ungrateful right to this day.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Follow
> You are the exact counterpart to Communists who shrug off the failure
> of the Soviet Union by claiming it wasn't pure communism.
>
> Capitalism of the robber baron era was as close to pure capitalism as
> the world will ever see. As I said, that very close approximation of
> pure capitalism resulted in hell on earth for all but a small
> minority.
>
> The complexities of the modern world make it impossible for the
> economy to function without significant government intervention. Your
> "pure" capitalism will never happen, so you are in the rather
> ridiculous position of advocating an ideology which will never happen.
>
> Historians generally regard this period as the heyday of capitalism.
> Capitalism is a fatally flawed ideology which requires significant
> government intervention to prevent the most dire predictions of Marx
> from becoming reality. FDR was the savior of capitalism, yet he is
> vilified by the ungrateful right to this day.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
My views on capitalism are nothing like the way they were at the time
you're referencing. You are right about my position being ridiculous in
that I'm advocating a methodology that will never happen. My kind of
world would require a very drastic change in thinking that I don't think
man is capable of. We got close once, but never again.
You are right that capitalism can't survive in today's society or with
the way people think, but that doesn't mean one should abandon their
ideal. I think, generations from now, thinking will change if it isn't
stagnated today by backwards ideals. That's why it isn't ridiculous to
defend my position, in a century, it could be mainstream.
Follow :)
ramashiva
> ramashiva wrote:
> > You are the exact counterpart to Communists who shrug off the failure
> > of the Soviet Union by claiming it wasn't pure communism.
> > Capitalism of the robber baron era was as close to pure capitalism as
> > the world will ever see. As I said, that very close approximation of
> > pure capitalism resulted in hell on earth for all but a small
> > minority.
> > The complexities of the modern world make it impossible for the
> > economy to function without significant government intervention. Your
> > "pure" capitalism will never happen, so you are in the rather
> > ridiculous position of advocating an ideology which will never happen.
> > Historians generally regard this period as the heyday of capitalism.
> > Capitalism is a fatally flawed ideology which requires significant
> > government intervention to prevent the most dire predictions of Marx
> > from becoming reality. FDR was the savior of capitalism, yet he is
> > vilified by the ungrateful right to this day.
> My views on capitalism are nothing like the way they were at the time
> you're referencing. You are right about my position being ridiculous in
> that I'm advocating a methodology that will never happen. My kind of
> world would require a very drastic change in thinking that I don't think
> man is capable of. We got close once, but never again.
>
> You are right that capitalism can't survive in today's society or with
> the way people think, but that doesn't mean one should abandon their
> ideal. I think, generations from now, thinking will change if it isn't
> stagnated today by backwards ideals. That's why it isn't ridiculous to
> defend my position, in a century, it could be mainstream.
Very true. As Shakespeare said, what's yet to come is still unsure.
I am thinking the most likely scenario is that megacorporations take
over the world, and national governments become nothing but puppets of
the corporations.
Oh wait. We aren't that far from that scenario right now.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Follow
> Very true. As Shakespeare said, what's yet to come is still unsure.
> I am thinking the most likely scenario is that megacorporations take
> over the world, and national governments become nothing but puppets of
> the corporations.
>
> Oh wait. We aren't that far from that scenario right now.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
What we would disagree on here is that I believe government made the
"megacorporation" what it is today, not that they allowed it through
inaction. If it weren't for government subsidies, companies like
Wal-Mart wouldn't be what they are, certain wealthy people wouldn't be
what they are, the list goes forever. Had government minded its own
business, there wouldn't *be* "megacorporations" in the first place.
Follow :)
ramashiva
> ramashiva wrote:
> > Very true. As Shakespeare said, what's yet to come is still unsure.
> > I am thinking the most likely scenario is that megacorporations take
> > over the world, and national governments become nothing but puppets of
> > the corporations.
> > Oh wait. We aren't that far from that scenario right now.
> What we would disagree on here is that I believe government made the
> "megacorporation" what it is today, not that they allowed it through
> inaction. If it weren't for government subsidies, companies like
> Wal-Mart wouldn't be what they are, certain wealthy people wouldn't be
> what they are, the list goes forever. Had government minded its own
> business, there wouldn't *be* "megacorporations" in the first place.
Well, since Teddy Roosevelt, the federal government has had a policy
of breaking up large corporations to foster competition. Surely your
ideal capitalism is not one which meets the condition of pure
competition, where no single producer has the ability to influence
price.
Unlike many liberals, I do not demonize Walmart. I shop there, and I
belong to Sam's Club, not Costco. On balance, I think Walmart is a
positive influence on our society and economy. Like everything else,
Walmart has its good points and bad points.
Most of the bad points, like driving local businesses out of business,
are simply a function of making the economy more efficient and
providing lower prices to the consumer.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Follow
What the government does is break up the corporations they don't like.
Most of the time though, they only boost those corporations they do
like. I demonize Walmart, because they are worthy of it. Sam Walton
was a great man, intelligent, capitalistic, and honest. His brood of
children are complete assholes by comparison. They are dishonest and
receive government money to further their corporation. Without the
government, Walmart would be just another store.
Which monopoly has the government broken up in this country exactly?
Only one. What was the reason that monopoly was broken up? Not because
there was a lack of competition for Ol' Ma Bell, but because the
government wouldn't allow the competition to compete by laying copper of
their own. So without government even that one monopoly wouldn't have
been in existence. There have been no monopolies in this country that
haven't been a direct result of government interference. If you
disagree with that, please point one out.
Follow :)
bub
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>You don't know how I smell.
with your nose
Beldin the Sorcerer
> news:679c8ddf-e8ca-4bc7...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I am thinking
>
> No fucking way. I know there is a first time for everything, but that time
> is not now.
>
He's not wrong about unrestricted capitalism being an insane way to live.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"susan" <hotd...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:6fZNm.65887$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad...
BTSinAustin
Your puppet master must be getting lazy, there was a time when he (she?)
did a decent and entertaining job of debating. If I thought for a minute
you would respond I would explain WTF I am talking about, but all you do
these days (and I am speaking to puppet master) is call names. You seem
to have regressed to Jr high school.
_____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
BTSinAustin
>Snip Susan's Proof
And he crawls away again. Prediction. If he does answer it will have the
word lie in each sentence.
--------�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> On Nov 21, 12:27�am, Brandii <bust.edin.ve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > � � The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> > computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> > files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> > methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> > A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> > reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> > smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> > � � �One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> > discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> > in recent years). Too funny.
>
> Why are you continuing to repeat this discredited nonsense??? There
> has been no decline in global temperatures in recent years. Here is
> the basic fact --
>
> If you plot average global temperature as a function of time, then the
> ten-year least squares line which INCLUDES 1998 has a positive slope,
> indicating the warming trend is continuing.
Why in the world would you think a least squares timeline has any meaning
at all?
>
> I posted authoritative links with graphs and everything, yet here you
> are repeating the same debunked lie.
There is nothing at all authoritative about an unadusted least squares
line with 10 data points.
ramashiva
wrote:
> On Nov 21 2009 3:36 AM, ramashiva wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 12:27 am, Brandii <bust.edin.ve...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > The web is smoking with the news that a hacker has broken into the
> > > computer at East Anglia University in England and grabbed over 5000
> > > files and emails that have thrown back the curtains on the true
> > > methods and motives of several top scientists involved in the debate.
> > > A top skeptic was asked if the data contained the smoking gun that
> > > reporters are always looking for. He responded that it wasn't a
> > > smoking gun, it was a f_____ mushroom cloud!
> > > One of the most highly discussed emails involves two alarmists
> > > discussing methods to "hide the decline" (the decline in temperatures
> > > in recent years). Too funny.
> > Why are you continuing to repeat this discredited nonsense??? There
> > has been no decline in global temperatures in recent years. Here is
> > the basic fact --
> > If you plot average global temperature as a function of time, then the
> > ten-year least squares line which INCLUDES 1998 has a positive slope,
> > indicating the warming trend is continuing.
> Why in the world would you think a least squares timeline has any meaning
> at all?
Why wouldn't I?
> > I posted authoritative links with graphs and everything, yet here you
> > are repeating the same debunked lie.
> There is nothing at all authoritative about an unadusted least squares
> line with 10 data points.
Get a clue, Gary. The graph is a refutation of any claim that global
temperatures have declined over the past 11 years. It doesn't prove
conclusively that temperatures have risen over the past 11 years. But
it certainly proves conclusively that there is no evidence
temperatures have declined, which is the claim made in the OP.
The link I gave is authoritative in the sense that the graph is posted
on a blog run by some of the world's leading climate scientists. You
know, authorities?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
FL Turbo
So I take it that you haven't read anything at all about the Shitstorm
that is raining down on the head of those "leading climate
scientists"?
The, you know, Authorities.
da pickle
>>The link I gave is authoritative in the sense that the graph is posted
>>on a blog run by some of the world's leading climate scientists. You
>>know, authorities?
>>
>
> So I take it that you haven't read anything at all about the Shitstorm
> that is raining down on the head of those "leading climate
> scientists"?
>
> The, you know, Authorities.
It is possible that this subject will somehow no longer be of any interest
in the future.