News in the world of Global Warming
RonSonic
Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
itself.
Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
hacker
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657
Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
Ron
landotter
> Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> itself.
>
> Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> hacker
>
>
> Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> Ron
How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?
Moo!
RonSonic
Amazing. You are so fearful that there exists some secret conspiracy of what, a
burning-stuff consortium that your first reaction to something apparently
contrary to what you wish to believe earns reflexive insults. At the same time
you have not the least bit of skepticism toward the multinational conglomerates
who hope to profit by billions of dollars for producing nothing if only they can
sell the global warming consensus. Al Gore becomes a billionaire for advocating
that the product sold by his corporate masters be mandated by law and treaty and
you don't see a reason to doubt. Ten years of dropping temperatures, something
you feel every time you step out doors, and you don't doubt. Yet a public
mention of any reason to doubt and you start screaming at the picture of
Emmanuel Goldstein in your head. This should be telling you something.
I recommended taking this with caution, but you instantly go to the cocksucker
flamethrower. Shows which of us is actually prepared to think it through,
doesn't it. It also shows who really depends on others to do his thinking for
him.
You're such a complete tool that you can't even bear to read a suggestion that
something is amiss with the theory you've been sold without immediately
responding with hate.
You are not only a tool, but a crude, ugly and ineffectual one.
Oh, the link was truncated in the reply. Let's fix that. Here's the original
link, it contains links to the purported emails and documents.
http://tinyurl.com/warmism Those capable of thinking for themselves should
check it out, or just wait for more confirmation. Though having the director of
the CRU confirm it might be enough.
Ron
Dan O
<snip>
>
> Oh, the link was truncated in the reply. Let's fix that. Here's the original
> link, it contains links to the purported emails and documents.http://tinyurl.com/warmism Those capable of thinking for themselves should
> check it out, or just wait for more confirmation. Though having the director of
> the CRU confirm it might be enough.
>
"... alarmist scientists... " (?)
Dan O
<snip>
>
> Oh, the link was truncated in the reply. Let's fix that. Here's the original
> link, it contains links to the purported emails and documents.http://tinyurl.com/warmism Those capable of thinking for themselves should
> check it out, or just wait for more confirmation. Though having the director of
> the CRU confirm it might be enough.
>
"... warmist scientists... " (?)
landotter
Don't be so hard on the fellow--he spent so much time getting the
Dagny Taggart pocket square just so before posting.
It's pretty funny how people can be led to believe that they're
thinking for themselves when they're just pawns for industry. A
critical thinker would go, "hmmm, science says this and this partisan
blog says the contrary with no credible evidence...duh!"
At any rate--whether it's Jute or Sonic--nutso keywords are always
great tools for a drinking game!
Algoreconspiracylibrul?
GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG!
Tim McNamara
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
There are certainly vast entrenched interests who do not want changes in
policy that would curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. These
people have billions of dollars in corporate and personal money at
stake. Would you be surprised that they leverage their influence to
protect themselves? You can call that a conspiracy if you like, I
prefer the term "collusion" (which is just corporatese for "conspiracy,"
I grant you).
> Al Gore becomes a billionaire for advocating that the product sold by
> his corporate masters be mandated by law and treaty and you don't see
> a reason to doubt.
Which product was that? I missed that one. And which corporate masters
own Gore? It's so hard to keep up between the Republicans and the
Democrats being owned by various masters. Are you referring to this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html
Funny that when a Republican makes billions through investment it's a
sign of his/her good business sense but when a Democrat does the same
thing it's a sign of corruption and falseness.
This is business as usual and both sides play. My beef with Gore is
just that he's a pompous gasbag, albeit with a better vocabulary than
most pompous gasbags in the media.
> Ten years of dropping temperatures, something you feel every time you
> step out doors, and you don't doubt. Yet a public mention of any
> reason to doubt and you start screaming at the picture of Emmanuel
> Goldstein in your head. This should be telling you something.
We haven't had ten years of dropping temperatures, Ron. Aren't you the
slightest bit embarrassed by continually telling lies that have been
debunked for you time and again?
> I recommended taking this with caution, but you instantly go to the
> cocksucker flamethrower. Shows which of us is actually prepared to
> think it through, doesn't it. It also shows who really depends on
> others to do his thinking for him.
Fun! Irony!
landotter
> In article <9djdg5p8851c7i6ma236l6h5123g3cm...@4ax.com>,
>
> Funny that when a Republican makes billions through investment it's a
> sign of his/her good business sense but when a Democrat does the same
> thing it's a sign of corruption and falseness.
>
> This is business as usual and both sides play. My beef with Gore is
> just that he's a pompous gasbag, albeit with a better vocabulary than
> most pompous gasbags in the media.
>
> > Ten years of dropping temperatures, something you feel every time you
> > step out doors, and you don't doubt. Yet a public mention of any
> > reason to doubt and you start screaming at the picture of Emmanuel
> > Goldstein in your head. This should be telling you something.
>
> We haven't had ten years of dropping temperatures, Ron. Aren't you the
> slightest bit embarrassed by continually telling lies that have been
> debunked for you time and again?
That's why one doesn't need to seriously engage dopes that lie. Ron's
immune from reason. No need to get frustrated.
>
> > I recommended taking this with caution, but you instantly go to the
> > cocksucker flamethrower. Shows which of us is actually prepared to
> > think it through, doesn't it. It also shows who really depends on
> > others to do his thinking for him.
>
> Fun! Irony!
>
> > You're such a complete tool that you can't even bear to read a
> > suggestion that something is amiss with the theory you've been sold
> > without immediately responding with hate.
>
There we go! It's not a wingnut tet a tet until they nail themselves
up on a cross.
Fun! Irony!
[whiiiiiiiiiiiine snip]
>
> > Ron
Maybe he's not a corporate cocksucker. Still a corporate bottom,
though.
Nonsense and evidence are not equal--unless you're a wingnut or
otherwise religious.
Tom Kunich
news:timmcn-718F16....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
> In article <9djdg5p8851c7i6ma...@4ax.com>,
> RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Amazing. You are so fearful that there exists some secret conspiracy
>> of what, a burning-stuff consortium that your first reaction to
>> something apparently contrary to what you wish to believe earns
>> reflexive insults. At the same time you have not the least bit of
>> skepticism toward the multinational conglomerates who hope to profit
>> by billions of dollars for producing nothing if only they can sell
>> the global warming consensus.
>
> There are certainly vast entrenched interests who do not want changes in
> policy that would curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. These
> people have billions of dollars in corporate and personal money at
> stake. Would you be surprised that they leverage their influence to
> protect themselves? You can call that a conspiracy if you like, I
> prefer the term "collusion" (which is just corporatese for "conspiracy,"
> I grant you).
http://www.co2science.org/cgi-bin/temperatures/ushcnca.pl
It is important to understand that most of those proclaiming global warming
are noting ocean temperatures and usually only in those locations where
tropical current flows have been changing over time.
Livermore, on the other hand, is inland enough that they are getting only
the pacific air flow.
RB
news:gbgdg5p790v5vg72p...@4ax.com:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-
apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
Approaching 1,000 posts in 18 hours.
This is a big deal . . . as in several nails in the CAGW coffin from this
incident. Many of the correspondences discuss techniques for 'adjusting' the
past temps downward and the present upward. The UN IPCC, Kyoto, and proposed
Copenhagen treaties to transfer $Trillions from developed to developing
nations are built around the work of this office.
Here are some varied local opinions:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-
leaked-emails
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-
hacking
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-
final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
As for the charge that 'big business' is behind the skeptics, many leading
international corporations, lead by GE, are working diligently to portray
themselves as 'Green'. Their motive is carbon credits, tax subsidies and
government funding. One analysis estimated the proportion of funding for
'alarmists' to 'skeptics' was 5,000 to 1.
This is what the ice caps have done the past 30 years:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtren
d.jpg
This is what the sea level has done the past 15 years:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
This is what the lower atmosphere summed temperatures are doing for the past
30 years. A 0.28 deg C rise.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_09.jpg
Caution. Please note the Y-axis is exaggerated or not zeroed on all charts.
The 'climate' really isn't doing much of anything during the past six decades
of my life. This past Summer was cool and comfortable in the USA mid-section.
BTW, 1934 was the hottest Summer in recent history.
"Frighten -> Control -> Tax"
RB - BS/MS & PE but NOT employed or invested in any energy industry. Biking
and racing since 1973.
Tom Kunich
news:Xns9CC9A6C386309e...@131.156.1.132...
>
> The 'climate' really isn't doing much of anything during the past six
> decades
> of my life. This past Summer was cool and comfortable in the USA
> mid-section.
> BTW, 1934 was the hottest Summer in recent history.
>
> "Frighten -> Control -> Tax"
>
> RB - BS/MS & PE but NOT employed or invested in any energy industry.
> Biking
> and racing since 1973.
I studied the climate way back in the 70's when it appeared to be riding up.
However, when you look at it with the "rough" temperatures over a couple of
millennia we are simply on a standard cyclic variation. Chinese explorers
supposedly sailed along the northern coast of North America without any ice
in the early 15th century but that's argumentative.
The long and the short of it is that the temperature has been cycling
forever and the claim that we're destroying the world with our
industrialization is not exactly preposterous but really doesn't have
anything to back it up considering the centuries long warm spells when it
was far warmer than it is today.
landotter
> The long and the short of it is that the temperature has been cycling
> forever and the claim that we're destroying the world with our
> industrialization is not exactly preposterous but really doesn't have
> anything to back it up considering the centuries long warm spells when it
> was far warmer than it is today.
That's what's known as a common sense meme in the form of a casual
lie. It's still a lie. There is evidence, no matter if you casually
dismiss it to be a trendy liar.
Tom Kunich
news:4febffc0-d574-4c11...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Sure seems like the world is lying and you're the only one with "the real
truth".
Dan O
> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote innews:gbgdg5p790v5vg72p...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out
> > before acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about
> > Global Warmism itself.
>
> > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly
> > hacked and years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the
> > internets. The director there confirms the hackage and says that these
> > are indeed their emails and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more
> > like an inside job than an external hacker
>
> > s/hadley_hacked#63657
>
> > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have
> > been subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> > Ron
>
> apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
>
> Approaching 1,000 posts in 18 hours.
>
> This is a big deal . . . as in several nails in the CAGW coffin from this
> incident. Many of the correspondences discuss techniques for 'adjusting' the
> past temps downward and the present upward. The UN IPCC, Kyoto, and proposed
> Copenhagen treaties to transfer $Trillions from developed to developing
> nations are built around the work of this office.
>
> leaked-emailshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-em...
> hackinghttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
> final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
>
> As for the charge that 'big business' is behind the skeptics, many leading
> international corporations, lead by GE, are working diligently to portray
> themselves as 'Green'. Their motive is carbon credits, tax subsidies and
> government funding. One analysis estimated the proportion of funding for
> 'alarmists' to 'skeptics' was 5,000 to 1.
>
> d.jpg
>
> This is what the sea level has done the past 15 years:http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>
> This is what the lower atmosphere summed temperatures are doing for the past
>
> Caution. Please note the Y-axis is exaggerated or not zeroed on all charts.
>
> The 'climate' really isn't doing much of anything during the past six decades
> of my life. This past Summer was cool and comfortable in the USA mid-section.
> BTW, 1934 was the hottest Summer in recent history.
>
> "Frighten -> Control -> Tax"
>
There are dishonest people on every side of any issue. (In fact there
are no absolutely honest or absolutely dishonest people anywhere, but
yes there are degrees [ha-ha] of everything.)
As for thinking for myself, I'm pretty sure that I do. In the case of
things like scientific understanding so advanced that even people who
spend their lives studying the subject acknowledge only degrees of
understanding, I form my own understanding based on what others have
to say and how much I respect them and what they have to say (the
degree of respect based on infinite surrounding factors).
I'm no more a Global Warming Alarmist than I am a Fear Mongering
Propagandist for helmets, but I intuitively understand that mankind
has relentlessly advanced his ability and apparently inherent
inclination to tear down the very world that gives him his life, and
my hippie intuition leans in favor of easing up in this.
landotter
> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote innews:gbgdg5p790v5vg72p...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out
> > before acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about
> > Global Warmism itself.
>
> > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly
> > hacked and years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the
> > internets. The director there confirms the hackage and says that these
> > are indeed their emails and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more
> > like an inside job than an external hacker
>
> > s/hadley_hacked#63657
>
> > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have
> > been subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> > Ron
>
> apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
>
> Approaching 1,000 posts in 18 hours.
>
> This is a big deal . . . as in several nails in the CAGW coffin from this
> incident.
Not a single nail in any coffin. You are lying and buying into the
hysteria.
> Many of the correspondences discuss techniques for 'adjusting' the
> past temps downward and the present upward.
This is also a lie. Some of the claimed conversations are about
squaring ocean temps with growth rings. Never show an idiot something
half cooked,eh?
>The UN IPCC, Kyoto, and proposed
> Copenhagen treaties to transfer $Trillions from developed to developing
> nations are built around the work of this office.
>
Cite? Evidence?
> Here are some varied local opinions:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
> leaked-emailshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-em...
> hackinghttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climatega...
> final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Opinions are like assholes. Blogs don't bolster anyone's point.
>
> As for the charge that 'big business' is behind the skeptics, many leading
> international corporations, lead by GE, are working diligently to portray
> themselves as 'Green'. Their motive is carbon credits, tax subsidies and
> government funding.
Note: no evidence given for this hysterical opinion.
>One analysis estimated the proportion of funding for
> 'alarmists' to 'skeptics' was 5,000 to 1.
No cite given for this lie.
>
> This is what the ice caps have done the past 30 years:http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmhttp://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area....
> d.jpg
>
> This is what the sea level has done the past 15 years:http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>
> This is what the lower atmosphere summed temperatures are doing for the past
> 30 years. A 0.28 deg C rise.http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Oct_0...
>
> Caution. Please note the Y-axis is exaggerated or not zeroed on all charts.
>
> The 'climate' really isn't doing much of anything during the past six decades
> of my life. This past Summer was cool and comfortable in the USA mid-section.
> BTW, 1934 was the hottest Summer in recent history.
Broken links--but if it was so easy to prove--see if you can get
yourself an igNobel.
>
> "Frighten -> Control -> Tax"
And here's the real reason for the shitstorm of lies. Poster is yet
another economic feudalist willing to gamble the future for
ideological purity--regardless of evidence.
Like I said in another post--this conspiratorial-libertardlian POV is
just trendy nonsense by the false equivalence patrol, brought to you
by the Hysterical People at Nanner Nanner Boo Boo.
Norman
You are a credit to your philosophy, sir.
Norman
> And here's the real reason for the shitstorm of lies. Poster is yet
> another economic feudalist willing to gamble the future for
> ideological purity--regardless of evidence.
>
> Cite? Evidence?
> Like I said in another post--this conspiratorial-libertardlian POV is
> just trendy nonsense by the false equivalence patrol, brought to you
> by the Hysterical People at Nanner Nanner Boo Boo.
> Note: no evidence given for this hysterical opinion.
> No cite given for this lie.
landotter
> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:timmcn-718F16....@news-2.mpls.iphouse.net...
>
>
>
> > RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Amazing. You are so fearful that there exists some secret conspiracy
> >> of what, a burning-stuff consortium that your first reaction to
> >> something apparently contrary to what you wish to believe earns
> >> reflexive insults. At the same time you have not the least bit of
> >> skepticism toward the multinational conglomerates who hope to profit
> >> by billions of dollars for producing nothing if only they can sell
> >> the global warming consensus.
>
> > There are certainly vast entrenched interests who do not want changes in
> > policy that would curb CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. These
> > people have billions of dollars in corporate and personal money at
> > stake. Would you be surprised that they leverage their influence to
> > protect themselves? You can call that a conspiracy if you like, I
> > prefer the term "collusion" (which is just corporatese for "conspiracy,"
> > I grant you).
>
> http://www.co2science.org/cgi-bin/temperatures/ushcnca.pl
>
> It is important to understand that most of those proclaiming global warming
> are noting ocean temperatures and usually only in those locations where
> tropical current flows have been changing over time.
>
> Livermore, on the other hand, is inland enough that they are getting only
> the pacific air flow.
Your source is funded by Exxon.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
What exactly is it that compels you troglodytes to suck on the
corporate cock?
Norman
Do you have a cite for that, or are you just pulling this
purported cock-sucking out of your arse?
Norman
> Your source is funded by Exxon.
>
> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/exxonsecrets.org
landotter
> On Nov 21, 3:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And here's the real reason for the shitstorm of lies. Poster is yet
> > another economic feudalist willing to gamble the future for
> > ideological purity--regardless of evidence.
>
> > Cite? Evidence?
You trimmed the evidence of the posters troglidism--the irrational
skepticism fueled by economic dogmatism--the tax meme.
> > Like I said in another post--this conspiratorial-libertardlian POV is
> > just trendy nonsense by the false equivalence patrol, brought to you
> > by the Hysterical People at Nanner Nanner Boo Boo.
> > Note: no evidence given for this hysterical opinion.
> > No cite given for this lie.
Which lie? The trendy libertarian trend on climate change is
irrational skepticism--because that's how libertarianism works--you
claim false equivalence, lie, then make everything about your own
"independent thinking" while gagging on corporate cock.
Norman
> On Nov 21, 3:00 pm, Norman <invasivenor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 3:47 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And here's the real reason for the shitstorm of lies. Poster is yet
> > > another economic feudalist willing to gamble the future for
> > > ideological purity--regardless of evidence.
>
> > > Cite? Evidence?
>
> You trimmed the evidence of the posters troglidism--the irrational
> skepticism fueled by economic dogmatism--the tax meme.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=juxtaposition
>
> > > Like I said in another post--this conspiratorial-libertardlian POV is
> > > just trendy nonsense by the false equivalence patrol, brought to you
> > > by the Hysterical People at Nanner Nanner Boo Boo.
> > > Note: no evidence given for this hysterical opinion.
> > > No cite given for this lie.
>
> Which lie? The trendy libertarian trend on climate change is
> irrational skepticism--because that's how libertarianism works--you
> claim false equivalence, lie, then make everything about your own
> "independent thinking" while gagging on corporate cock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
By the way, I just need a couple more!
http://tinyurl.com/yey7zgj
landotter
Wouldn't it just be easier for you to nail yourself up on a cross like
an average wingnut instead of playing the 'tardlian wiseacre card in
lieu of any evidence to bolster your conspiratorial smugness?
landotter
<bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote:
> Amerika!".
>
> (pause to salute the Exxon corporate banner)
That better be a Bellamy salute. With a finger mustache.
Andre Jute
> Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> itself.
>
> Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> hacker
>
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> Ron
One really has to wonder how many times the corruption in climatogy
will have to be exposed before the politicians start smelling the
decay of scientific principle.
This is utterly Stalinesque. These socalled scientists are not even
asking, "What is the truth?" They start and end by saying, "How can we
arrive at the politically desired result?" In short, they knew from
the beginning that they were lying, that Michael Mann was lying, that
the hockey stick was and is a lie told by Mann, Briffa, the IPCC, and
by the so-called "peer reviewers". They sold out to the IPCC
bureaucrats more than a decade ago, and the pols (with the honorable
exception of Senator Barton's committee whom I've quoted here before)
still haven't found them out!
Ugh!
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
Andre Jute
Enjoy!
Andre Jute
> On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> > acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> > itself.
>
> > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> > years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> > director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> > and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> > hacker
>
> >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> > subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> > Ron
>
>
> Moo!
Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
charged with conspiracy to defraud.
There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?
I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
genocide right there. They hung lesser genocides at Nuremberg on much
less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.
If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
opinion directly.)
Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
landotter
> On Nov 20, 4:48 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:28 am, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> > > acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> > > itself.
>
> > > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> > > years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> > > director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> > > and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> > > hacker
>
> > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> > > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> > > subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> > > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
>
> > How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?
>
> > Moo!
>
> Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
> the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
> of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
> charged with conspiracy to defraud.
>
> There was a time when the global warming chorus wanted to put global
> warming "deniers" in court. How about fairness and putting this
> criminal scum in the courts as "global warming manufacturers"?
>
> I think we could make a case for the death penalty. The mechanism of
> multiple murder is clear here. Mann, Jones and Briffa as IPCC authors
> knowingly lied about global warming; on their "science" trillions was
> spent on Kyoto and other "global warming" crap; the same money could
> not be spent on the starving in Africa, so they died. That's a
>
> > How's that corporate dick taste, Ron?
>
> > Moo!
>
> Corporate executives who conspired against the public purse -- like
> the socalled "climate scientists" Mann, Jones, Briffa and all the rest
> of the snouts in the IPCC trough did -- would sleep in jail tonight,
> charged with conspiracy to defraud.
>
> and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.
>
> If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
> have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
> falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
> their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
> conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
> have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
> flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
> advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
> little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
> considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
> executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
> have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
> them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
> opinion directly.)
>
> Andre Jute
> A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
In the shitstorm of lies--neither you nor Ron [fingermustache:bellamy]
nor anyone else have actually provided any evidence of a worldwide
conspiracy. Because there is none.
It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.
As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
authoritarian brain.
The authoritarian brain doesn't do nuance and has a big throbbing New
Jersey roadmap of a hardon for facile blame. It's always "X is the
cause of societies ill." "We must get rid of X!!!"
Just yesterday I was trying to tune the Grundig in the the garage to
NPR and right next to it on the dial, among the endless hysterical
shows about religion, a deep belief also held with no evidence, was a
woman shrieking and crying as she called into one of these religious
shows--about how our current president is exactly like Hitler and
ruining her life, even though that's historically not true and she
could provide no evidence. It didn't matter--her hysteria was proof
enough and it was time to blame.
landotter
> On Nov 20, 4:28 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> > acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> > itself.
>
> > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> > years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> > director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> > and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> > hacker
>
> >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
>
> > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> > subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
>
> > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
>
> > Ron
>
> One really has to wonder how many times the corruption in climatogy
> will have to be exposed before the politicians start smelling the
> decay of scientific principle.
>
> This is utterly Stalinesque.
Lie.
>These socalled scientists are not even
> asking, "What is the truth?"
Lie.
> They start and end by saying, "How can we
> arrive at the politically desired result?"
Lie.
> In short, they knew from
> the beginning that they were lying, that Michael Mann was lying, that
> the hockey stick was and is a lie told by Mann, Briffa, the IPCC, and
> by the so-called "peer reviewers".
Lie. No evidence of claim.
> They sold out to the IPCC
> bureaucrats more than a decade ago, and the pols (with the honorable
> exception of Senator Barton's committee whom I've quoted here before)
> still haven't found them out!
>
Lie. No evidence of claim.
> Ugh!
Is that a post-lying interjection?
Andre Jute
rec.audio.tubes
Re: News in the world of Global Warming
landotter <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > less clear evidence; I would say that the evidence against Mann, Jones
> > and Briffa in particular is overwhelming, and from their own mouths.
> >
> > If this murdering scum had gotten away with their scam, they might
> > have wrecked the only atmosphere our planet has. Since they dealt
> > falsely in apocalyptic panic, the jury should consider the worst that
> > their lies could have brought about (even if it is difficult to
> > conceive of the magnitude of misery that the cost of Kyoto alone could
> > have averted in Africa), which would probably be the starvation of all
> > flora and fauna for lack of CO2 and consequently plant food, and
> > advise the judge to punish them with matching severity, and add a
> > little something as a warning to other scientists who might be
> > considering selling out science as this scum has done. (I know, the
> > executioner can't hang or electrocute them twice, but the judge could
> > have them stood up in a pillory for a couple of days before executing
> > them so that the taxpayers they stole from can come express their
> > opinion directly.)
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
>
> In the shitstorm of lies--neither you nor Ron [fingermustache:bellamy]
> nor anyone else have actually provided any evidence of a worldwide
> conspiracy. Because there is none.
This is a straw man. No one claimed that global warming is a worldwide
conspiracy. It is widely known that many, many nations and scientists
reject the very concept of global warming and carbon emissions control
as a pseudo-scientific substitute for politically incorrect racism,
the urge to hold down the browns and the yellows.
Now see the file you can download at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
What these e-mails -- the very words of the plotters from their own
mouths -- prove beyond doubt is that there is a conspiracy among the
Anglo-American-Australian axis of global warming "scientists" who are
leading writers of IPCC reports. Since it is also clear that they form
a claque of mutual support and admiration *and a circle of undue
influence* on the media, it is sufficient to prove only a small
conspiracy. In fact, the very size and open viciousness of the
conspiracy shocked me -- how can adults be as stupid as to think that
sort of conspiracy against the public won't be discovered?
What sort of "scientist" behaves so arrogantly?
> It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
> faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
> when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
> conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.
I'm not a conspiracy buff. I believe in the fuckup theory of history,
among other reasons because criminals, including criminals of state
and science, are almost always flawed by arrogance, which is first
cousin to stupidity. These "climatologists" clearly conspired
criminally to defraud the taxpayer, and insulted our intelligence by
lying to us, and then bragged to each other about how they lied to us,
swapping tips and tricks to pull more wool over our eyes. Read all
about it in the files at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
As for the global warming skeptics being in a "minority", as you
claim, bullshit. 65 per cent of the populace in the States no longer
believed the global warmies' ever more hysterical lies even before the
liars were so publicly exposed in their smug gloating.
> As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
> view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
Who? The global warmies or the rationalist who have all along asked
for proper proof, not precautionary crap and uncosted waste in
swingeing attempts at government by accident?
> Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
> more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
> industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
> authoritarian brain.
Maxine, you are so deliciously ignorant, you must have taken the
evening off to dye your hair blonde. What you're accusing me of is in
fact merely that I am a rationalist who prefers science backed by
facts to stoking up irrational panics based on lies and playing on
people's emotions, which is what the global warmies do all the time.
> The authoritarian brain doesn't do nuance
>and has a big throbbing New
> Jersey roadmap of a hardon for facile blame. It's always "X is the
> cause of societies ill." "We must get rid of X!!!"
What's to "nuance" with a bunch of crooks who lied to get bigger
grants?
Criminals can be identified as individuals. Even a conspiracy is made
up of individuals. Each individual among these self-style "scientists"
told individual lies and committed individual frauds in grant
applications and in telling lies to the public.
> Just yesterday I was trying to tune the Grundig in the the garage to
> NPR and right next to it on the dial, among the endless hysterical
> shows about religion, a deep belief also held with no evidence, was a
> woman shrieking and crying as she called into one of these religious
> shows--about how our current president is exactly like Hitler and
> ruining her life, even though that's historically not true and she
> could provide no evidence. It didn't matter--her hysteria was proof
> enough and it was time to blame.
Quite my point. You global warmies behave like religious fundies.
That's not science, that's hysteria.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Andre Jute
> On Nov 21, 11:14 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 20, 4:28 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Like so many things I recommend giving this time to prove itself out before
> > > acting or speaking rashly. But then, that's how I felt about Global Warmism
> > > itself.
> >
> > > Short version: The British Met office at Hadley has been allegedly hacked and
> > > years of emails and documents were opened and exposed on the internets. The
> > > director there confirms the hackage and says that these are indeed their emails
> > > and documents. Actually, it looks a lot more like an inside job than an external
> > > hacker
> >
> > >http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/com...
> >
> > > Unless someone spent a lot of time writing fake emails the numbers have been
> > > subjected to a lot more warming than has our climate.
> >
> > > Easy to create a "consensus" if you're willing to just lie to people.
> >
> > > Ron
> >
> > One really has to wonder how many times the corruption in climatogy
> > will have to be exposed before the politicians start smelling the
> > decay of scientific principle.
> >
> > This is utterly Stalinesque.
>
> Lie.
Perhaps, before you start namecalling, dear Maxine, you should let me
develop my thought:
> >These socalled scientists are not even
> > asking, "What is the truth?"
>
> Lie.
Real scientists, rather than these so-called, self-styled
"scientists", understand that to be true science, the results must be
falsifiable. Real scientists, rather than these so-called, self-styled
"scientists", share data. Instead these jerks admit in their e-mails
to going to great lengths to keep the data from which they falsified
their desired result from those who would prove their incompetence and
lying.
Refusal to share data is adequate and sufficient proof of bad science.
> > They start and end by saying, "How can we
> > arrive at the politically desired result?"
>
> Lie.
They knew that in the face of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little
Ice Age *there is no global warming*, merely a partial and ongoing
recovery to a prior equilibrium state. They knew the Hockey Stick was
a lie. They knew 1998 was not the hottest year on record, that 1934
was (in the depth of the Depression -- what did industry contribute to
that?). They knew all that, and kept producing the Hockey Stick even
after it was condemned as incompetent science by both the North and
the Wegman committees of the NAS testifying under oath before the
Barton Committee of the US Senate. These self-styled "scientists" lied
for political and financial advantage. Period. Their e-mails prove it.
> > In short, they knew from
> > the beginning that they were lying, that Michael Mann was lying, that
> > the hockey stick was and is a lie told by Mann, Briffa, the IPCC, and
> > by the so-called "peer reviewers".
>
> Lie. No evidence of claim.
In a separate thread "US National Academy of Science CONDEMNS Global
Warming Lies" http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/2f56dbb2a941c0de?hl=en#
I publish the evidence given on oath by the NAS Panel under North,
constituted to defend Mann against questions by the US Senate as if
these were merely political questions (!), which none the less found
Mann incompetent in exactly the same way the Wegman Panel of
statisticians denounced Mann. That's all the evidence, even without
the recent exposures of the damning e-mails between this conspiring
claque of crooks, required to state that they knew for years, and yet
continued to write IPCC reports showing the lying hockey stick.
McIntyre and McKittrick's paper exposing the Hockey Stick as a
statistical fraud was published even earlier. There is no possible
defense of ignorance for the scientific crooks Mann, Jones and Briffa
(all important writers of IPCC reports on which trillions were
misspent; all beneficiaries under false pretenses of huge government
grants, about which there should be a police investigation); they knew
precisely what they were doing, as the e-mails prove.
> > They sold out to the IPCC
> > bureaucrats more than a decade ago, and the pols (with the honorable
> > exception of Senator Barton's committee whom I've quoted here before)
> > still haven't found them out!
> >
>
> Lie. No evidence of claim.
The proof that I quoted the evidence before Senator Barton's committee
stands here on RBT in the archives. I republish that evidence in a
separate thread. http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/2f56dbb2a941c0de?hl=en#
The date on which they sold out is fixed by the Reuter report of the
complaint.
That these self-styled messiahs sold out to the bureaucrates at the
IPCC "more than a decade ago" is easily proved by the Reuters report
of Dec. 20, 1995 which quoted British scientist Keith Shine, one of
IPCC's lead authors, discussing the IPCC Policymakersí Summary: "We
produce a draft, and then the policymakers go through it line by line
and change the way it is presented.... It's peculiar that they have
the final say in what goes into a scientists' report." The Science and
Environmental Policy Project conducted a survey of IPCC scientific
contributors and reviewers and found that about half did not support
the Policymakers' Summary. Parallel surveys by the Gallup organization
and even by Greenpeace International produced similar results. In 1995
it was already long since clear and established that the scientists
were not independent and should have rejected the IPCC shilling (and
influence and interference) with contempt.
> > Ugh!
>
> Is that a post-lying interjection?
Poor Maxine. If you didn't invite all the world vicariously into your
pain, you wouldn't look so stupid for having believed these crooks
from whom you bought that bottle of snake oil called global warming.
By contrast, I've been on the arse of these doomsayers since I was a
precocious teenager with a newspaper column. These global warming
bozos are no less incompetent and no less crooked than the hole in the
ozone layer clowns, or the global popsicle clowns of the seventies, or
the Millennium Bug clowns.
Your response is juvenile: denial and name-calling. The facts are on
the table: proof positive, rational, incontestable. Your heroes lied,
and lied, and lied, and lied. Knowingly, repeatedly. For base motives.
For financial gain. And they were so arrogant, they wrote it all down
in their e-mails for posterity to see their pettiness and baseness.
Suck it up and move on, Maxine. There are plenty of other unworthy
causes for a worthless trendy like you to give her whole whoring
little heart to, so that you can feel you belong somewhere at least
until all the other worthless little trendies move on to the next fad.
Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!
Andre Jute
> I publish the evidence given on oath by the NAS Panel under North,
> constituted to defend Mann against questions by the US Senate as if
> these were merely political questions (!), which none the less found
> Mann incompetent in exactly the same way the Wegman Panel of
> statisticians denounced Mann. That's all the evidence, even without
> the recent exposures of the damning e-mails between this conspiring
> claque of crooks, required to state that they knew for years, and yet
> continued to write IPCC reports showing the lying hockey stick.
>
> McIntyre and McKittrick's paper exposing the Hockey Stick as a
> statistical fraud was published even earlier. There is no possible
> defense of ignorance for the scientific crooks Mann, Jones and Briffa
> (all important writers of IPCC reports on which trillions were
> misspent; all beneficiaries under false pretenses of huge government
> grants, about which there should be a police investigation); they knew
> precisely what they were doing, as the e-mails prove.
>
> > > They sold out to the IPCC
> > > bureaucrats more than a decade ago, and the pols (with the honorable
> > > exception of Senator Barton's committee whom I've quoted here before)
> > > still haven't found them out!
>
> > Lie. No evidence of claim.
>
> The proof that I quoted the evidence before Senator Barton's committee
> stands here on RBT in the archives. I republish that evidence in a
XXX XXX XXX
Bill Sornson
That the Global Warming Activist Sect would stoop to ideologically driven
falsification of data and then lie more to cover it up is hardly surprising.
That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal attacks on
the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even less so.
Bill "don't need to be no stinkin' Kreskin to predict such stuff" S.
Dan O
"... ideologically driven... "?
landotter
There is no evidence to support this claim.
> That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal attacks on
> the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even less so.
And here we go again, the cocksuckers love to play the victim in lieu
of having evidence for their hysterical emotionalism.
moo.
RonSonic
>> It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
>> faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
>> when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
>> conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.
>
>I'm not a conspiracy buff. I believe in the fuckup theory of history,
>among other reasons because criminals, including criminals of state
>and science, are almost always flawed by arrogance, which is first
>cousin to stupidity. These "climatologists" clearly conspired
>criminally to defraud the taxpayer, and insulted our intelligence by
>lying to us, and then bragged to each other about how they lied to us,
>swapping tips and tricks to pull more wool over our eyes. Read all
>about it in the files at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
I think you are too quick to throw words like "criminal" around. The impression
I get are of true believers who cannot accept the evidence before them and are
sincerely trying to reconcile it to what they believe must, must be true.
But then there's that stuff about dodging FOI requests.
>As for the global warming skeptics being in a "minority", as you
>claim, bullshit. 65 per cent of the populace in the States no longer
>believed the global warmies' ever more hysterical lies even before the
>liars were so publicly exposed in their smug gloating.
>
>> As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
>> view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
>
>Who? The global warmies or the rationalist who have all along asked
>for proper proof, not precautionary crap and uncosted waste in
>swingeing attempts at government by accident?
>
>> Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
>> more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
>> industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
>> authoritarian brain.
>
>Maxine, you are so deliciously ignorant, you must have taken the
>evening off to dye your hair blonde. What you're accusing me of is in
>fact merely that I am a rationalist who prefers science backed by
>facts to stoking up irrational panics based on lies and playing on
>people's emotions, which is what the global warmies do all the time.
You miss the interesting point, "global warming deniers are funded by huge
corporate interests" while the corporate and governmental interests who profit
from the global warming panic are seen as benevolent, somehow. This is something
you'll see over and over again in the modern left, but is most prominent here.
There are of course many thousands of large companies who earn billions by
selling us things like electricity and heat and all the varied sources of
energy. We get that, they have something useful and desireable to sell and lobby
for the right to sell it. There are also companies with no useful product who
profit from the panic. Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
slaughter wildlife the way they do. They need the panic to exist at all, much
less get funded by government grants. The carbon credits syndicates are simply
crooked from the get go. Solar panel farms as environmentally sensitive, get
real.
Me, I'm more likely to trust the company that is selling a valued product for
profit than the one selling impractical, wasteful or nonexistent rubbish and
feel-good lies that depend on government mandates, subsidies and tax credits.
Ron
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
> slaughter wildlife the way they do.[...]
What do you think blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping the
overburden in the adjacent valleys does for wildlife? Sheesh!
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Peter Wieck
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't try reason or fact - Andre is impervious to either.
Note that he and his proxies are stuttering again. On the assumption
that any reasonable person will simply give up and go away leaving
them with the last word. What is so sad is that they are so caught up
in having the LAST WORD in a tiny little backwater of Usenet with
about as much potential for impact on the entire world as they have
for bettering their own sad, limited, empty little lives. Let it rest.
You will be giving them a gift of momentary victory - more than they
have any right to expect and more than they deserve but none-the-less
a gift.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.
Ozark Bicycle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> RonSonic aka Ron Bales wrote:
>
> > [...]Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
> > slaughter wildlife the way they do.[...]
>
> What do you think blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping the
> overburden in the adjacent valleys does for wildlife? Sheesh!
>
In the World of the Neocons, where Ronnie Raygun is a Saint and Dick
Cheney is a Patriot, those types of mining practices are benign!
;-)
Tom Sherman °_°
Well, St. Ronnie did claim trees cause air pollution, and mountaintop
removal does get rid of a lot of trees.
In addition, modern geared wind turbines are NOT bird Cuisinart's,
unlike the direct drive turbines of the 1970's which spun much faster
(and were also built in major bird migratory routes in California).
Here in the Upper Midwest, most of the wind farms are built in the
middle of fields, so there is no additional loss of wildlife habitat.
Ozark Bicycle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle Service wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 10:45 am, Tom Sherman °_°
> > <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >> RonSonic aka Ron Bales wrote:
>
> >>> [...]Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
> >>> slaughter wildlife the way they do.[...]
> >> What do you think blowing off the top of a mountain and dumping the
> >> overburden in the adjacent valleys does for wildlife? Sheesh!
>
> > In the World of the Neocons, where Ronnie Raygun is a Saint and Dick
> > Cheney is a Patriot, those types of mining practices are benign!
>
> > ;-)
>
> Well, St. Ronnie did claim trees cause air pollution, and mountaintop
> removal does get rid of a lot of trees.
Ah! The Gipper at his senile best!
>
> In addition, modern geared wind turbines are NOT bird Cuisinart's,
> unlike the direct drive turbines of the 1970's which spun much faster
> (and were also built in major bird migratory routes in California).
>
> Here in the Upper Midwest, most of the wind farms are built in the
> middle of fields, so there is no additional loss of wildlife habitat.
>
I'm so grateful the Neocons want to Save the Birds by advocating safe,
clean nookler power. "No birds were harmed in the making of this
hazardous waste."
landotter
The French aren't neocons last I checked, but the world's biggest
proponents of nuclear generated electricity. The paradox of "small
governent" types cheering on nukes as panacea for energy is that such
large scale power creation virtually always involves financing by the
state. Conversely--most "conservatives" I interact with seem
incredibly hostile to what I think is a healthier POV to energy
generation, the old adage of to not put ones eggs in one basket, and
to instead offer smaller government grants to a wide array of
promising techniques, be it wind, wave, or solar chimneys--and let
them sort themselves out in order of practicality. You'd think that
"pro-market" folks would see my pretty middle-of-the-road POV--but the
problem is that modern paranoid conservatives hate one thing most of
all--complexity. Thus--most are hell bent on their love of nukes--
despite their creation hinging on federal money and trust in
governance--qualities which can be called "socialist" by using their
own highly sensitive yardstick.
Andre Jute
Maxine Ott, after exposure by the Hadley Hack ( http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
)of way the IPCC and its scientists created global warming out of thin
air, whines::
> >> It's a true sign of radicalism when you feel that your minority
> >> faction has the right to jump to conclusion without any evidence--but
> >> when presented with evidence that clearly contradicts your
> >> conspiratorial insanity--you'll explain it away.
Andre Jute replied:
> >I'm not a conspiracy buff. I believe in the fuckup theory of history,
> >among other reasons because criminals, including criminals of state
> >and science, are almost always flawed by arrogance, which is first
> >cousin to stupidity. These "climatologists" clearly conspired
> >criminally to defraud the taxpayer, and insulted our intelligence by
> >lying to us, and then bragged to each other about how they lied to us,
> >swapping tips and tricks to pull more wool over our eyes. Read all
> >about it in the files at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Ron Bales thinks:
> I think you are too quick to throw words like "criminal" around.
Jute:
There's plenty of cause, Ron. These people knowingly conspired to
commit a fraud on the public and did commit a fraud on the public, a
very expensive fraud. They did financed this fraud with research grant
money. Each of their grant applications, especially if it cites one of
their lying papers as support for the application, is a separate
attempt to defraud the government. Their combined efforts are a
conspiracy.
I'm not the first to follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion.
At
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/03/climate-science-fraud-at-albany-university/
you will find an article by the science ethicist Dr.Aubrey Blumsohn
explaining how Professor Wei-Chyung Wang of Atmospheric Sciences
Research Center at the University at Albany, New York cheated by
including imaginary readings in a paper; this paper and Wang himself
feature largely in the Hadley Hack, wherefrom it is clear they knew he
lied -- and said nothing to the authorities. In short, Wang is one of
the insiders whom Edward Wegman condemned before the US Senate as a
clique corrupting global warming studies. Hadley CRU capo di capo
tuti, Professor Jones, is a co-author of Wang...
The upshot was that Doug Keenan, a mathematician, accused Wang of
unscientific conduct and was brushed off by the University at Albany.
After trying to take the matter up through the university channels,
Keenan lodged a complaint to the Public Integrity Bureau at the Office
of the Attorney General of New York State, alleging criminal fraud,
The logic is in my first par above.
Bales:
> The impression
> I get are of true believers who cannot accept the evidence before them and are
> sincerely trying to reconcile it to what they believe must, must be true.
Then they must be incredibly stupid, for they created "global warming"
out of nothing. *There was no global warming.* There was only the
entirely natural temperature uptrend from the Little Ice Age back to
temperatures, warmer than today, similar to those in the Medieval Warm
Period of several centuries; our present period, including the 1990s,
is actually *cold* in the historical perspective of interglacial
periods. These people with statistical lies turned a period natural
variability into the panic of "global warming". They knew what they
were doing. They knew all along it was a lie. Jones of the CRU
actually confesses to wanting global warming *still* to happen so they
can be proved right -- in short, he admits they know it hasn't
happened yet. (After years of such heavy publicity, I'm not surprised
that even an intelligent observer can thinks, Well, there must be some
global warming, or at least the possibility.)
Bales:
> But then there's that stuff about dodging FOI requests.
That's criminal already.
As Doug Keenan says, “almost by itself, the withholding of their raw
data by [climate] scientists tells us that they are not scientists”.
But, more than that, withholding and even more, maliciously destroying
materials subject to FOI requests is clearly criminal activity. I hope
their universities act against them for that, for these are crimes
against learning, but I fear the universities will join in the cover-
up, as the U of East Anglia clearly already has.
Jute to Maxine Ott-Ott:
> >As for the global warming skeptics being in a "minority", as you
> >claim, bullshit. 65 per cent of the populace in the States no longer
> >believed the global warmies' ever more hysterical lies even before the
> >liars were so publicly exposed in their smug gloating.
Maxine:
> >> As I've said before--it's classical irrational skepticism--a point of
> >> view usually associated with mental illness and internet trolls.
Jute:
> >Who? The global warmies or the rationalist who have all along asked
> >for proper proof, not precautionary crap and uncosted waste in
> >swingeing attempts at government by accident?
Maxine:
> >> Sadly--the fuel for this widespread "movement" of yours is nothing
> >> more than lies and cynicism which can be traced back to industry,
> >> industry, which as always, is ready to exploit the faulty
> >> authoritarian brain.
Jute:
> >Maxine, you are so deliciously ignorant, you must have taken the
> >evening off to dye your hair blonde. What you're accusing me of is in
> >fact merely that I am a rationalist who prefers science backed by
> >facts to stoking up irrational panics based on lies and playing on
> >people's emotions, which is what the global warmies do all the time.
Bales:
> You miss the interesting point, "global warming deniers are funded by huge
> corporate interests" while the corporate and governmental interests who profit
> from the global warming panic are seen as benevolent, somehow. This is something
> you'll see over and over again in the modern left, but is most prominent here.
Jute:
Forget for the moment that Fat Al Gore was born to privilege and even
then he is an unlikely poster boy for the left. But it is beyond me
how his open advocacy of laws that will benefit a brokerage where he
is a partner by billions of dollars can fail to attract the
condemnation and disgust of any decent person. I conclude that the
left has simply become so cynical that decency has fled their house.
As if that isn't enough, Fat Al's refusal to debate these matters is
open contempt for democracy -- and still the left loves him, proving
their authoritarianism.
Bales:
> There are of course many thousands of large companies who earn billions by
> selling us things like electricity and heat and all the varied sources of
> energy. We get that, they have something useful and desireable to sell and lobby
> for the right to sell it. There are also companies with no useful product who
> profit from the panic. Wind farms? No other industry would ever be permitted to
> slaughter wildlife the way they do. They need the panic to exist at all, much
> less get funded by government grants. The carbon credits syndicates are simply
> crooked from the get go. Solar panel farms as environmentally sensitive, get
> real.
>
> Me, I'm more likely to trust the company that is selling a valued product for
> profit than the one selling impractical, wasteful or nonexistent rubbish and
> feel-good lies that depend on government mandates, subsidies and tax credits.
Jute:
We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.
Peter Wieck
Bill Sornson
He and Ron (a regular poster) were having an exchange. If you think he's
using a sock puppet, then why the need to delete (all) the dialog?
Andre Jute
Stupid to leave the evidence lying around, though. Or, more likely,
arrogant.
> That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal attacks on
> the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even less so.
Very disappointed in Maxine von Ott und zu Ott. A pretty pisspoor
performance from her. But I suppose anyone would be bitter at seeing
her religion of global warming crumbling from the feet up before her
very eyes.
Serve her right for whoring after false gods like that Budha-figure,
Fat Al Gore.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Hadley Hack exposed those clowns as crooks
landotter
his delusions.
So bottoms up folks--it's the irrational skeptic drinking game!
GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!
Andre Jute
> He never actually provides any legitimate evidence for
> his delusions.
>
> So bottoms up folks--it's the irrational skeptic drinking game!
>
> GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!
They why is it necessary to delete *all* my references and argument?
Spin me that one, Maxine? Here it is again, straight between the eyes,
dear Maxine:
*******
landotter
> drivel
Your source is the blog of a right wing television weatherman?
GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE GURGLE!
Andre Jute
You don't have any answers to the confessions of criminal destruction
of data and conspiracy to defraud the public purse by your heroes, do
you Maxine von Ottbott?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks
landotter
>[[chirp chirp chirp]
Still can't link to a legitimate source for your paranoid delusions?
How long do you want to play this game? You can get the last word in
as many times as you'd like--if you don't mind proving the point over
and over again that you're mentally unstable.
If I needed to convince you and your buddy right wing Ron of something
that's accepted science, like natural selection--I could link you to
thousands of sites--but you need to upload "secret turds" to a web
hosting site?
GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG!
William Asher
news:4a1e613f-7b8c-4944...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
> million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
> and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
> winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.
This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
than she already does.
e.g.,
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/behavioural-and-environmental-
correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/
--
Bill Asher
bjwe...@gmail.com
8 wind turbines killing 250,000 birds per year would be
85 dead birds per day on the ground under each turbine.
The stench must be incredible
(incredible = not credible).
Ben
Bill Sornson
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:59:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
> <land...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 22, 10:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That the Global Warming Activist Sect would stoop to ideologically
>>> driven falsification of data and then lie more to cover it up is
>>> hardly surprising.
>>
>> There is no evidence to support this claim.
Snipping the links to smoking gun proof doesn't make it go away. Ostrich
School of GW Debate.
> There is, unfortunately, a ton of evidence to support that claim with
> not the least of which being the well know, by now, Mann hockey stick
> fraud.
>
> Simply put, in addition to using known problematic datasets he created
> a cute little mechanism that automagically produces hockey stick
> trends from trendless data.
Hell, just stick another "temperature data recording station" on a concrete
slab in direct sun next to an air conditioning unit and call it good.
>> That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal
>>> attacks on the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even
>>> less so.
>>
>> And here we go again, the cocksuckers love to play the victim in lieu
>> of having evidence for their hysterical emotionalism.
Noting crude, personal attacks on someone else is hardly playing victim.
GrndRt's logic is as sound as his science. LOL
> You're going to find yourself either outraged or crying if the media
> ever bothers to investigate what's in the FOI2009.zip data.
Anyone else notice the terravermin's near /obsession/ with (all-male)
fellatio? Better Scotchguard that shrink's couch...
BS
Ben C
>> I'm so grateful the Neocons want to Save the Birds by advocating safe,
>> clean nookler power. "No birds were harmed in the making of this
>> hazardous waste."
>
> The French aren't neocons last I checked, but the world's biggest
> proponents of nuclear generated electricity.
Yes and EU gravy trains are one of the world's biggest funders of
climate change "research".
> The paradox of "small governent" types cheering on nukes as panacea
> for energy is that such large scale power creation virtually always
> involves financing by the state.
This is true, I suspect mainly because nuclear power is not economical.
If it were actually cheaper than the alternatives (which it might be if
carbon was taxed heavily enough) then I think you'd find more people
doing it.
I think I'd rather Chinese power stations were burning coal for a bit
longer.
Tom Sherman °_°
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:4a1e613f-7b8c-4944...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
>> We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
>> million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
>> and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
>> winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.
>
> This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
> estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
> this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
> than she already does.
>
rotting carcasses, no?
> e.g.,
>
> http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/behavioural-and-environmental-
> correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7
>
Don't be bringing facts into the debate!
Tom Sherman °_°
landotter
> On 2009-11-23, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 3:23 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> [...]
> >> I'm so grateful the Neocons want to Save the Birds by advocating safe,
> >> clean nookler power. "No birds were harmed in the making of this
> >> hazardous waste."
>
> > The French aren't neocons last I checked, but the world's biggest
> > proponents of nuclear generated electricity.
>
> Yes and EU gravy trains are one of the world's biggest funders of
> climate change "research".
Lie.
landotter
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:59:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
> <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 10:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >> That the Global Warming Activist Sect would stoop to ideologically driven
> >> falsification of data and then lie more to cover it up is hardly surprising.
>
> >There is no evidence to support this claim.
>
> not the least of which being the well know, by now, Mann hockey stick
> fraud.
Why is it then--that you authoritarian science deniers can't provide
any of this evidence that's not tainted by either Big Oil or right
wing political organizations?
There is no hockey stick fraud. Claiming that there is makes you a
liar.
> Simply put, in addition to using known problematic datasets he created
> a cute little mechanism that automagically produces hockey stick
> trends from trendless data.
>
> >> That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal attacks on
> >> the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even less so.
>
> >And here we go again, the cocksuckers love to play the victim in lieu
> >of having evidence for their hysterical emotionalism.
>
> You're going to find yourself either outraged or crying if the media
> ever bothers to investigate what's in the FOI2009.zip data.
Here we see an example of typical right wing authoritarian nanner
nanner boo booing. All with zero evidence.
Pathetic.
landotter
> flipper wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:59:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
> > <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 22, 10:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> >>> That the Global Warming Activist Sect would stoop to ideologically
> >>> driven falsification of data and then lie more to cover it up is
> >>> hardly surprising.
>
> >> There is no evidence to support this claim.
>
> Snipping the links to smoking gun proof doesn't make it go away. Ostrich
> School of GW Debate.
What smoking gun? There's no evidence or "smoking gun". I know you
right wing authoritarians want a smoking gun really bad--but it
doesn't work like Jesus or Jiminey Cricket. Squinting, crapping your
pants, and praying really hard won't make evidence manifest itself in
order to defend your rigid political ideology--ideology so disgusting
that it's willing to gamble with the Earth itself.
Ask yourself--why is it only the radical conservatives who won't
believe in scientific reality? I mean--your Queen in America is so
radically anti-science that she admits to not believing in natural
selection in her new book--because it contradicts her faith in magic.
When that's the mainstream of your faction--base denial of scientific
reality--I beg of you, fuck off.
Peter Wieck
Again, you are wasting your time debating with invincible ignorance.
Andre cannot count - accordingly no one else can count either.
A modern 200' (60m) turbine turns at something around 16 RPM, with a
tip-speed of something like 115mph (184kph), and makes approximately 2
meg of power under design-wind conditions. Given also that most of
them have three blades, that means a blade passes any given point
about every 1.25 seconds. The 55 turbines of this size along SR 61 in
Centralia, PA are calculated to have a vanishingly small effect on
bird populations even though they are along a significant raptor
migratory route. If they were doing even anything like 20 birds per
day in total, you can bet that the Hawk Mountain Sanctuary nearby
would be all over the news. They don't and they aren't.
Given that this is crossposted in the tube group so his position in
the bicycle group is fair-game, and as long as we are in the realm of
wild speculation given Andre's general credibility has anyone here:
a) Actually seen Andre on a bicycle?
b) Actually seen Andre with a bicycle?
It has been established that he does lead a rich and full fantasy life
- and given his fantasies about non-existent tube projects, non-
existent audio accomplishments and so forth and his near-complete
retreat from the tube groups (at least as on-topic posts are
concerned) I expect that his life on the bicycle groups is equally
rich and fantastic.
Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
The battles are so vicious because the stakes are so small.
landotter
> On Nov 23, 11:14 pm, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:4a1e613f-7b8c-4944...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > We have eight wind turbines down the road here. They kill a quarter-
> > > million birds each every year. My wife feeds the birds in the garden,
> > > and the hedgehogs and the foxes that come live in the folly in the
> > > winter. I'm withholding that statistic from her.
>
> > This is nonsense. It's a factor of 10^6 higher than most reasonable
> > estimates of bird kills from wind turbines. The only reason you withhold
> > this from your wife is if you told her, she would think you were battier
> > than she already does.
>
> > e.g.,
>
> >http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/behavioural-and-environmental-
> > correlates-of-soaring-bird-mortality-at-on-shore-wind-turbines/
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/ybxj3j7
>
> > --
> > Bill Asher
>
> Again, you are wasting your time debating with invincible ignorance.
> Andre cannot count - accordingly no one else can count either.
>
Invincible ignorance? Brilliant! Jute does have a bit of an Ignatius
J. Reilly thing going on!
>
> Given that this is crossposted in the tube group so his position in
> the bicycle group is fair-game, and as long as we are in the realm of
> wild speculation given Andre's general credibility has anyone here:
>
> a) Actually seen Andre on a bicycle?
> b) Actually seen Andre with a bicycle?
>
> It has been established that he does lead a rich and full fantasy life
> - and given his fantasies about non-existent tube projects, non-
> existent audio accomplishments and so forth and his near-complete
> retreat from the tube groups (at least as on-topic posts are
> concerned) I expect that his life on the bicycle groups is equally
> rich and fantastic.
>
Ask him about the hermaphrodite he rides that's accented with coach
lines!
Peter Wieck
> Ask him about the hermaphrodite he rides that's accented with coach
> lines!
I doubt Mr. Jute is able to manage one sex - much less two in
combination.
Andre Jute
A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer
Bill Sornson
> �We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.� -- Jonathan Overpeck,
> climate "scientist", IPCC writer
Overpeck over-reached? LOL
Bill "insert (so to speak) own joke here" S.
Andre Jute
wrote:
A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, Ben
Weiner, and that other lying global warmie Bill Asher out of hiding to
tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
have confessed in their own words in
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
I just lurf the way you clowns can spend a ton of bandwidth on me
adding a couple of noughts to birdkills at fewer than a double handful
wind turbines, but you have nothing to say about the scummy, crooked
and unscientific behaviour of the leaders in the so-called science of
climatology.
Andre Jute
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer, all-round honest chappie
landotter
Why is this thread so long without you presenting any legitimate
evidence yet?
BTW, the midieval warm period was a regional, not global phenomenon.
It's popularly brought up by ignorant dooshbags--serving as a memetic
warning cry of dumbassery.
William Asher
>
> A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
> Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
> tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
> entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
> particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
> arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
> have confessed in their own words in
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
The problem with that tactic is that you'll never convince me that was what
you were trying to do, and likely a lot of other people will feel the same
way as me. So while it may feel like a victory to you, it's only damaged
your reputation.
Whenever you want to talk about the physics of climate, and problems you
see therein, I'm here. Otherwise, you don't really have much to say that's
of interest.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
> I just lurf the way you clowns can spend a ton of bandwidth on me
> adding a couple of noughts to birdkills at fewer than a double handful
> wind turbines, but you have nothing to say about the scummy, crooked
> and unscientific behaviour of the leaders in the so-called science of
> climatology.
You can find my public comment on "The Hack" posted at RealClimate.org.
Happy hunting.
--
Bill Asher
landotter
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:53:40 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
>
>
> <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 11:47 pm, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:59:49 -0800 (PST), landotter
>
> >> <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 22, 10:38 pm, "Bill Sornson" <so...@noyb.com> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> That the Global Warming Activist Sect would stoop to ideologically driven
> >> >> falsification of data and then lie more to cover it up is hardly surprising.
>
> >> >There is no evidence to support this claim.
>
> >> There is, unfortunately, a ton of evidence to support that claim with
> >> not the least of which being the well know, by now, Mann hockey stick
> >> fraud.
>
> >Why is it then--that you authoritarian science deniers can't provide
> >any of this evidence
>
>
> If you want more then go here
>
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
>
> > that's not tainted by either Big Oil or right
> >wing political organizations?
>
> matter, stands on it's own merits.
>
> >There is no hockey stick fraud.
>
> stick trends from trendless data, and then defending it once exposed,
> is evidence of fraud.
>
> > Claiming that there is makes you a
> >liar.
>
>
> >> Simply put, in addition to using known problematic datasets he created
> >> a cute little mechanism that automagically produces hockey stick
> >> trends from trendless data.
>
> >> >> That the Ground Rat would stoop to crude, mean-spirited personal attacks on
> >> >> the poster(s) who provided the link(s) proving it, even less so.
>
> >> >And here we go again, the cocksuckers love to play the victim in lieu
> >> >of having evidence for their hysterical emotionalism.
>
> >> You're going to find yourself either outraged or crying if the media
> >> ever bothers to investigate what's in the FOI2009.zip data.
>
> >Here we see an example of typical right wing authoritarian nanner
> >nanner boo booing. All with zero evidence.
>
> hysterical cry baby.
>
> >Pathetic.
Climateaudit is a right wing misinformation site run by a paid shill
for the minerals industry.
But when you're desperate TO BELIEVE in your conspiracy--you'll suck
on the teat of whatever ugly old beast that'll have you.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre
There is no smoking gun. If there was--wouldn't you be able to nurse
from a prettier beast? LOL
An unconfirmed email is the smoking gun that there's an entire
worldwide conspiracy of scientists, politicians, and investors?
Hahahahahahahahaha [gasp] hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
>
> > A little troll trailed across the roiled waters to get you, William
> > Asher, and that other lying global warmie Ben Weiner out of hiding to
> > tell us what you think of the way Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and that
> > entire gang of global warming thugs have brought all of science and
> > particularly climate studies into disrepute with their lies,
> > arrogance, crookery, fraud and thuggery against dissenters, as they
> > have confessed in their own words in
> > http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
>
> The problem with that tactic is that you'll never convince me that was what
> you were trying to do, and likely a lot of other people will feel the same
> way as me. So while it may feel like a victory to you, it's only damaged
> your reputation.
You still haven't got it, have you, Asher? What good can the opinion
of a bunch of gullible tenth-raters do me? I don't care shit for your
opinion, and the opinion of the rest of the little tenth-rate
trendies, because I don't have to, sonny.
But what I've proved with the post is important: that you, William
Asher, and Ben Weiner, lurk in the shadows biting your tongues when
something adverse to global warming is reported and discussed but rush
out to get your kicks in when you see an opportunity for character
assassination. Have I said yet that the pair of you are worthless
scum, not worthy of the name scientist?
> Whenever you want to talk about the physics of climate, and problems you
> see therein,
The only problem I see is manmade global warming created by Mann,
Jones and that crowd of liars, frauds and crooks who have the cheek to
call themselves scientists.
>I'm here.
Yes, but, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, you don't know shit,
Asher. You're worthless.
>Otherwise, you don't really have much to say that's
> of interest.
That's good. Get off the pavement when you see me coming, touch your
forelock, and I won't analyze your lies in public.
Andre Jute
I learned my polemics in places where second prize is a bullet in the
back of the neck. Where did you learn yours?
Andre Jute
> >There is no hockey stick fraud.
Flipper:
> In my opinion, creating a cute little algorithm that produces hockey
> stick trends from trendless data, and then defending it once exposed,
> is evidence of fraud.
Plus the criminal destruction of evidence, the unscientific and
unethical denial of data and algorithms to dissenters, collusion and
conspiracy to continue defrauding the public purse, ditto to cover up
the crime, the unethical bullying of editors and publishers not to
accept dissenting papers, the unethical and disgusting attempts to
ruin the lieves of dissenters -- ugh, this list grows and grows. These
are all matters either for criminal charges by the police or charges
before ethics bodies or investigations by university authorities under
various rules (a good one is bringing learning and research and
science into disrepute).
More data in support at http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Bill Sornson
> engaging in the typical poison well fallacy.
Hey, at least he (?) has graduated from a cock-sucking obsession to teat
sucking! LOL Rat progress...
>> There is no smoking gun. If there was--wouldn't you be able to nurse
>> from a prettier beast? LOL
>
>
> NAS agreed with McIntyre's criticisms. I suppose you'll now claim NAS
> is a "right wing misinformation" organization.
>
>
>> An unconfirmed email is the smoking gun that there's an entire
>> worldwide conspiracy of scientists, politicians, and investors?
>>
>> Hahahahahahahahaha [gasp] hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> "Worldwide conspiracy" is your invention, hyena boy.
Just a hunch: Verminosity hasn't looked at a single incriminating e-mail.
Typical.
Bill "Congressional Inquiry, anyone?" S.
Norman
> Anyone who thinks this is going to play out like a movie mystery where
> all the questions are wrapped up in 2 hours is deluding themselves.
Well, I don't support a witch-hunt, or some kind of
Orwellian confession. We have a thing called due
process here in the United States. Give them a fair
chance to explain & defend themselves. And then
we can drive them into the streets like dogs and
beat them to death with hockey sticks and CFL-filled
pillow cases.
Tim McNamara
e-mails have provided hours of fun for the paranoid and the desperate-
including one whacked-out Congressmen applauding the breaking of laws.
Unfortunately for all of us, the science still stands. Climate change
is real, the role of humans in that change is clear- and like the
conservatives keep telling us, we need to take responsibility for our
actions.
Oh, wait, they don't keep telling us that except in election years. And
even then, they really just want *other* people to take responsibility.
You go first.
Andre Jute
> BTW, the midieval warm period was a regional, not global phenomenon.
> It's popularly brought up by ignorant dooshbags--serving as a memetic
> warning cry of dumbassery.
The Medieval Warm Period is firmly established in interdisciplinary
science as girdling the globe. See http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
That is why the Medieval Warm Period is so unpopular with the global
warming impressionables, because it is incontestable, proof positive
that global warming not only didn't happen in the 1990s but is very,
very, very^47 unlikely to happen in any foreseeable future. That is
why so many climate "scientists" such as Mann and Jones and Briffa
have ruined their reputations concocting spurious statistical "tricks"
to lie the Medieval Warm Period out of existence. But the historical
truth is a hardy breed that refuses to die.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Bicycles at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/BICYCLE%20%26%20CYCLING.html
landotter
I have to give conspiracy theorists credit for efficiency. Al Gore
could break wind in an elevator and they'd stretch it into a binder
full of conspiracy like a dust bowl mother cooking soup from a rusty
nail.
Andre Jute
> Good grief. Well, at least some illegally obtained and cherry picked
> e-mails have provided hours of fun for the paranoid and the desperate-
> including one whacked-out Congressmen applauding the breaking of laws.
All the sneering in the world will not detract one whit from the
content of that material, which demonstrates conclusively that the
climate crooks knew they were lying -- "hide the downturn" indeed! --
which is enough to condemn all their work, even without the criminal
destruction of data, the malicious attempts to suppress the voices of
critics, the conspiracy against the truth coming out, the assaults on
freedom of speech by trying to gag editors who permitted skeptics to
publish, etc, etc, etc, so many more unscientific behaviours
demonstrated by that correspondence.
> Unfortunately for all of us, the science still stands.
It doesn't now. It hasn't ever. The brief moment when it *appeared* as
if there was global warming was created by statistical trickery which
removed the globally true, historically verified Medieval Warm Period.
Once Mann and Briffa's statistical tricks were exposed -- and now
confirmed by the e-mails as deliberate dishonesty rather than mere
incompetence -- and the Medieval Warm Period was reinstated and
forever enshrined in the science *there could be no global warming*.
“We must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” -- Jonathan Overpeck,
climate "scientist", IPCC writer.
>Climate change
> is real, the role of humans in that change is clear-
Crap. There is no proof of the link to manmade CO2. Quite the
contrary. All evidence points to CO2 emissions lagging temperature
rise by 800 years. How can something which happens afterwards be the
cause of a prior effect? That cannot ever be science because times
winged arrow flies only one way. These supposed clamatic evils of
anthropogenic CO2 is pure science fiction.
> and like the
> conservatives keep telling us, we need to take responsibility for our
> actions.
These crooks who call themselves scientists should certainly resign
before they are fired by their institutions, and the unoversity
officials, who helped them cover up their lies by helping them destroy
data subject to Freedom of Information legislation and deny what was
left to others, should be fired from their jobs for failing to do the
jobs and for betraying the spirit of enquiry which should underpin
every university.
> Oh, wait, they don't keep telling us that except in election years. And
> even then, they really just want *other* people to take responsibility.
> You go first.
I've been saying for half a century that these climate scaremongers
should be put down once and for all. When Michael Mann's meretricious
Hockey Stick first appeared, I wrote plainly that it was a statistical
fraud, a historical lie, that it would be disproven by pre-existing
interdisciplinary knowledge, that Mann should be charged with contempt
of science and be run out of science (and certainly any honest
university) for it, and that the IPCC would continue to tell the Mann
Hockey Stick lie because *of course* a committee constituted to find
climate change *would* find climate change to keep themselves in jobs.
Now it's your turn to be honest for a change, Timmie.
Andre Jute
“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat,
plausible and wrong.” -- H. L. Mencken
"Hell, we're so rich and bored, we invent problems to find wrong
solutions to. We even have a name for it. It is called Government by
Accident." -- Andre Jute
PS I only wish you were right, Timmie. I would just dearly love some
global warming. But, unfortunately, the only manmade global warming
was made by Mann, Jones, Briffa et al, right inside a computer. We
don't cycle inside computers.
landotter
>[logic free rant]
Perhaps a mental health professional can help you with this deeply
emotional connection you have to things for which there is no
evidence. Or you might be able to channel it into being a radical
Muslim/Christian/etc--same shit, different day. Cheapest option is
really a sandwich board and two mismatched boots. The medium is the
message!
Jobst Brandt
> Perhaps a mental health professional can help you with this deeply
> emotional connection you have to things for which there is no
> evidence. Or you might be able to channel it into being a radical
> Muslim/Christian/etc--same shit, different day. Cheapest option is
> really a sandwich board and two mismatched boots. The medium is the
> message!
The symptom is entirely that of religion supported by faith alone.
Jobst Brandt
Andre Jute
I should think anyone who calls my post "logic-free" is by definition
logic-free, and anyone who thinks so closely reasoned an argument is a
sign of mental illness is by definition not the sharpest knife in the
drawer, in fact best kept away from sharp knives. Here it is, the
logic Maxine Land-Otter doesn't want you to see:
Andre Jute
Yes, poor Maxine has screeched "Lie, lie," around a hundred times now
in these global warming debates, without ever offering a single fact.
Poor dear can't even offer amusing character assassination, just the
same old dull reiteration. Maxine is, I fear, the stereotypical dumb
blonde, and very impressionable with it, as witness the poor dear's
fundie faith in the long-discredited schismatic fallacy of global
warming.
Andre Jute
On the evidence or no way
landotter
Bill Sornson
> On Nov 26, 5:16 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> Good grief. Well, at least some illegally obtained and cherry picked
>> e-mails have provided hours of fun for the paranoid and the
>> desperate- including one whacked-out Congressmen applauding the
>> breaking of laws.
>
> All the sneering in the world will not detract one whit from the
> content of that material, which demonstrates conclusively that the
> climate crooks knew they were lying -- "hide the downturn" indeed! --
> which is enough to condemn all their work, even without the criminal
> destruction of data, the malicious attempts to suppress the voices of
> critics, the conspiracy against the truth coming out, the assaults on
> freedom of speech by trying to gag editors who permitted skeptics to
> publish, etc, etc, etc, so many more unscientific behaviours
> demonstrated by that correspondence.
Funny how liberals had no issue with using e-mails to ruin the life and
career of a middle-aged gay congressman, or publishing (in the NYT) leaked
classified material that greatly endangered lives and undermined national
security, but exposing Global Warming Hoaxism and worse is...unacceptable?!?
Too freaking rich, even for Timmie and his fellow religious nutjobs.
There's a first time for everything, but don't get any hopes up...
> Andre Jute
> �There is always an easy solution to every human problem � neat,
> plausible and wrong.� -- H. L. Mencken
>
> "Hell, we're so rich and bored, we invent problems to find wrong
> solutions to. We even have a name for it. It is called Government by
> Accident." -- Andre Jute
>
> PS I only wish you were right, Timmie. I would just dearly love some
> global warming. But, unfortunately, the only manmade global warming
> was made by Mann, Jones, Briffa et al, right inside a computer. We
> don't cycle inside computers.
Nice and warm in LoSoCal today. I blame Bush.
BS
RonSonic
>Good grief. Well, at least some illegally obtained and cherry picked
>e-mails have provided hours of fun for the paranoid and the desperate-
>including one whacked-out Congressmen applauding the breaking of laws.
What's interesting about the "cherry picking" is that every single email and
document leaked was the subject of outstanding FOI requests.
>Unfortunately for all of us, the science still stands. Climate change
>is real, the role of humans in that change is clear- and like the
>conservatives keep telling us, we need to take responsibility for our
>actions.
Have any _scientific_ data for that?
Norman
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 23:16:20 -0600, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >Good grief. Well, at least some illegally obtained and cherry picked
> >e-mails have provided hours of fun for the paranoid and the desperate-
> >including one whacked-out Congressmen applauding the breaking of laws.
>
> What's interesting about the "cherry picking" is that every single email and
> document leaked was the subject of outstanding FOI requests.
>
Cherry picking somehow over 1000 e-mails and 155M
of data showing unashamed lying, fraud, and deliberate
criminal concealment. It's a good thing science doesn't
require ethical behaviour or these guys might have to go
back to trafficking underage sex slaves in Ft. Lauderdale.
> >Unfortunately for all of us, the science still stands. Climate change
> >is real, the role of humans in that change is clear- and like the
> >conservatives keep telling us, we need to take responsibility for our
> >actions.
>
> Have any _scientific_ data for that?
What's being pushed around now to answer all us wicked
holo^H^H^H^Hclimate change deniers:
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/yl9zrvh
It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to find the first
cite of "Mann et al". But have faith! We're sure to find some
paper somewhere that doesn't cite a known fraud. Again,
be of faith, because faith has no place in science.
RonSonic
>On Nov 23, 8:49�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>[[chirp chirp chirp]
>
>Still can't link to a legitimate source for your paranoid delusions?
>How long do you want to play this game? You can get the last word in
>as many times as you'd like--if you don't mind proving the point over
>and over again that you're mentally unstable.
>
>If I needed to convince you and your buddy right wing Ron of something
>that's accepted science, like natural selection--I could link you to
>thousands of sites--but you need to upload "secret turds" to a web
>hosting site?
>
>GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG!
Dude, do you have any idea how completely out of touch with reality your present
argument is. The CRU and the NZ NIWA are burning to the ground, and you're
standing there saying that because Fox News, or whatever, is covering it you
can't believe it's happening.
"Hide the decline"
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Andre Jute
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:54:31 -0800 (PST), landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 8:49 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>[[chirp chirp chirp]
>
> >Still can't link to a legitimate source for your paranoid delusions?
> >How long do you want to play this game? You can get the last word in
> >as many times as you'd like--if you don't mind proving the point over
> >and over again that you're mentally unstable.
>
> >If I needed to convince you and your buddy right wing Ron of something
> >that's accepted science, like natural selection--I could link you to
> >thousands of sites--but you need to upload "secret turds" to a web
> >hosting site?
>
> >GLUG GLUG GLUG GLUG!
>
> Dude, do you have any idea how completely out of touch with reality your present
> argument is. The CRU and the NZ NIWA are burning to the ground, and you're
> standing there saying that because Fox News, or whatever, is covering it you
> can't believe it's happening.
>
> "Hide the decline"
I think Lord Valve had it when he said we want the global warmies to
reconsider the evidence and they want to burn us as heretics. You
can't reason with a religious fanatic.
Andre Jute
Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science -- and I
said it long before the Hadley Hack exposed those clowns as crooks