Climategate; ManBearPig dead?

[Trimdingman]

Take back Al Gore's Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate

Read more

 

Like I have been saying, socialism is a religion. Once you believe something, no amount of proof will sway you. Al Gore is God to these people. They are ignoring Climategate, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get away with it.

[RangerM]

If others believed that they had less oil than they do, it would cause the price to rise, which would seem to make sense for them to do. However, this would also hurt their ability to borrow, using oil in the ground as collateral. For that, they would want to exaggerate their reserves. Another reason for them to want the world to believe that there is adequate oil reserves would be to prevent a World War over oil. They would be right in the middle of it.

How do you believe they maintain this balance? Do you think it is a natural balance, or is artificially-maintained to minimize swings in either direction? (sort of like the Fed tries to tame business cycles/inflation).

Edited December 6, 2009 by RangerM

[fmccap]

In 1975 US government pushed 'the coming ice age'...

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

 

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

 

You can't blame these scientists for sucking up to the fed's mantra du jour. Scientists live off grants. Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

[Trimdingman]

How do you believe they maintain this balance? Do you think it is a natural balance, or is artificially-maintained to minimize swings in either direction? (sort of like the Fed tries to tame business cycles/inflation).

 

In the small picture, they do a balancing act between supply and demand to maximize profits. This is artificial. At present, they are still able to meet the demand for oil. Once the big squeeze takes place, it will be a different story. The shortages will be real, and the competition will be fierce. They will probably just let the Americans and Chinese fight over it.

[stephenhawkings]

Like I have been saying, socialism is a religion. Once you believe something, no amount of proof will sway you. Al Gore is God to these people. They are ignoring Climategate, and I wouldn't be surprised if they get away with it.

so under that logic you still believe in Santa I take it.

[stephenhawkings]

belief and knowing are two different things.

[Trimdingman]

so under that logic you still believe in Santa I take it.

 

I don't believe in anything. Belief is a mental illness. What I said was these people who have been brainwashed to believe anything that Al Gore says, will not be swayed by any evidence that he is a big fraud. Socialists are religious fanatics. Once you get too deep into a fantasy world, it is next to impossible to get back to reality. Talk to a devout Christian or Muslim or Zionist. Their eyes will not focus on the real world. They are like zombies. It is the same with socialists. The world is going to burn up because of man made carbon dioxide. You can't convince them otherwise. You can show them evidence of how the experiments were rigged, but they will not pay any heed. They would drink the Kool-Ade if Al told them to.

[jpd80]

I don't believe in anything. Belief is a mental illness. What I said was these people who have been brainwashed to believe anything that Al Gore says, will not be swayed by any evidence that he is a big fraud. Socialists are religious fanatics. Once you get too deep into a fantasy world, it is next to impossible to get back to reality. Talk to a devout Christian or Muslim or Zionist. Their eyes will not focus on the real world. They are like zombies. It is the same with socialists. The world is going to burn up because of man made carbon dioxide. You can't convince them otherwise. You can show them evidence of how the experiments were rigged, but they will not pay any heed. They would drink the Kool-Ade if Al told them to.

I agree to an extent with you Trim,

I haven't see any "voice of moderation" in any of the GW debate, everyone seems heavily polarized.

My observations are that yes, there is some global warming happening but that the scientific data has

been skewed by the financial influence of 1) all that research grant money and 2) scientists long held

hatred of industrialization of the planet.

 

The scientists' objection to coal and oil use has gone through several phases:

 

1) we need to stop burning fossil fuels because the CO2 wil cause an ice age

 

2) we need to stop burning fossil fuels because the Ozone layer will be fucked an we'll all die of cancer.

 

3) we need to stop burning fossil fuels because cold fusion, hydro electricity and solar are the answers.

The planet will runout of fossil fuel so its better to start now and stop polluting the planet.

 

4) we need to stop burning fossil fuels because the CO2 wil cause global warming.

If you don't the polar ice caps will melt and drown everyone and your crops will wither and die.

 

Pick a generation, pick a reason.

Until I see real unbiased data on how much real effect CO2 has on global warming, I remain skeptical.

Especially when cars are responsible for less than 17% of all CO2 generated, new tech will drop it to 10%.

[goinbroke2]

I was under the "we might effect it a bit but they are exagerating the amount" to now I'm "you know what? they lied and there is NO PROOF WE HAVE CHANGED ANYTHING"

 

The climate is still swinging back and forth between cold and hot like it has long before the industrial revolution and in fact long before ceasar's palace was burning. The more I read (both sides of it) and find out the methodology the original founder of the CRU used (excellent, like a scientist should) to the fake bullshit Phil Jones did, I'm am getting more and more sceptical of AGW. (MMGW)

 

If I say it's raining outside, then you would ask how I came to that conclusion. "I went to that window and looked out". Then you could do the same test to prove or disprove my theory.

 

If I said "I won't tell you because your trying to disprove me" or deny anybody access to the info or even say "the data is gone, not my fault but it's all gone though" or how about e-mails telling others to how to manipulate data that doesn't fit.....yeah that makes me really suspicious.

 

Note to Phil Jones, IT'S NOT YOUR INFO OR THEORY TO PROVE OR DISPROVE YOU ARROGANT PRICK! It's a scientific theory for EVERYONE to challenge and disprove or <gasp> concur.

[RangerM]

In the small picture, they do a balancing act between supply and demand to maximize profits. This is artificial. At present, they are still able to meet the demand for oil. Once the big squeeze takes place, it will be a different story. The shortages will be real, and the competition will be fierce. They will probably just let the Americans and Chinese fight over it.

They can meet the demand for oil any time they want. The "they" here is OPEC. I'm sure you're aware that they (effectively) control the disbursement of about half the petroleum throughout the world and, given our politicians unwillingness to exploit our own (or even others') resources, are in a perfect position to accomplish that. Oil prices are a function of supply vs. demand. OPEC effectively controls the near-majority of supply, and since we won't do anything to dilute their influence, our only response is to artificially curb demand through taxes or environmental policy.

 

A war over oil was already fought. The despots won; hence OPEC.

 

You say you don't believe anything. I'd say you believe we are powerless to do anything about it, without some sort of military action. I'd also say you're wrong.

 

The oil (along with coal and natural gas) is there and the technology exists to retrieve and use it, but we'd rather keep some shieks fat and happy, and our representatives are only too happy to help them by (artificially) limiting our ability to do anything about it.

Edited December 7, 2009 by RangerM

[macattak1]

Then:

 

The hockey stick graph was old inadmissible news for the MMGW purveyors on this board and else where. That those that created it were fraudulent LIARS never really seemed to overly bother them.

 

Questioning scientist's: ethics, morals, results, intended results, hidden agendas, etc., even in the face of significant fraudulent scientists was un-acceptable, and not permissible.

 

Failing to have what the MMGW purveyors called 'peer reviewed' articles meant MMGW must be real!

 

Questioning the deficiencies, strong arm tactics, hidden agendas, fraud, etc. around 'Peer Reviewed' articles or the Peer group itself was was un-acceptable, and not permissible.

 

Questioning the IPCC AKA the Holy Grail of MMGW was impossible as it was made up of all these amazing world bodies of science.

 

What ever data the IPCC says is 'the' data is in fact the data to be used for all debates. Any other data is simply of little value and not 'the' data. Period.

 

Now:

 

The hockey stick graph is still major news when we take into account just how much they massaged that data to remove or even Invert the Medieval Warming Period and align all the data into the rising 'blade' as well as disguise and remove the decent that was cut off/hidden. The people that generated it were LIARS!

 

It is Right to question the integrity, ethics, motives, funding, prestige, etc. of the scientists working none stop to grind out Pro MMGW data!

 

Peer Review is in fact not some amazing thing. It is too much about 'majority' and 'power' rules. Its dangerous to tout PR articles when the group in power wont let anyone else in and when the articles that are reviewed are reviewed with fraudulant intent.

 

Data is now as the article says "Product". Which means no one wants to release their 'product' to others so that they can review it, test it, compare it, etc. It is now worth Money. And you don't want to release it Especially when it is full of questionable tricks and skewed data and even blatant lies. Its all about money, power, funding.

 

The IPCC does not check its own sources or is as fraudulent as their own sources and thus are wholly incapable of performing their assigned duties.

 

----------------------

 

Trillions of dollars on the line here and the only thing the MMGW backers have been backing is the same old sales lines, a refusal to debate, a refusal to be honest with the data, a refusal to question the scientists and their data, and a desperate need to still cling to the idea that is always at the end of every informal GW debate "That somehow man is affecting the climate one way or another. Period. Which then starts the process over again. Rinse/repeat to no end until they finally stop and drop the GW or MMGW issue.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

Apparently, the world hasn't been cooling:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/08/c...te-weather.html

 

 

The world is getting warmer...now, why?

[goinbroke2]

Are you serious? The CBC??

 

You must of been making a joke and I missed it. To say the earth is heating up "NOW" as if after reading yet another article from the left leaning cbc confirms it, wow. Did you even notice who that regurgitated report was from? you guessed it the UN and their ilk. Gee maybe I should look at a global warming site and WOW! THEY SAID IT TOO!!! must be true then.

 

 

Give me a break, the cbc. I also heard the news today that said (after saying the US is only reducing emissions 17% compared to 2005 and not 1998 like others so it's more like 5%) that 81% of Canadians don't agree with Harper on reduction goals. Their inference was that Canadians wanted more "action" then the States was doing and we shouldn't just follow the States lead.

 

The truth came out later when the numbers were revealed;

Canada should reduce more than the government is planning 23%

Canada should reduce less than the government is planning 58%

Canada should reduce the amount Harper is planning 19%

 

Yeah the CBC isn't biased at all is it? Yes it did "state the facts" Only 19% agree with Harper or 81% disagree...however, full disclosure shows their true colours (and it's not tory blue)

[goinbroke2]

"The head of the World Meteorological Organization, a United Nations weather agency, said Tuesday that this decade will "very likely" turn out to be the warmest on record going back to 1850."

 

LOL! Well, 1850 was the first of time after all, wasn't it? LOL How about the midevil warm period? It was warmer than now? DAMN! Must of been the diesel fired chariots.

 

You know what? Today was the coldest day on record going back to May 2009! AHHH!!! we're going into an ice age...oh wait they did that already too....

 

So tell me again why it's called "greenland" and not "whiteland"? And why is there documented farming by the vikings there?? Jeepers Scooby, that sounds like a mystery!

[Edstock]

Unfortunately, it appears Stevie is part of the problem.

 

You see, Alberta needs to lower its CO2 production by using CANDU nuclear reactors to provide the process heat/energy.

 

Problem is, Stevie hates the AECL government Crown Corporation that developed the technology, and wants to get rid of AECL, instead of promoting its developed technology like CANDU and even more important, Slo-Poke, Stevie is trying to auction it off. All it does is kill hi-tech engineering in the 2 provinces he hates, Ontario and Quebec.

 

But buying a reactor from a non-Canadian supplier is not possible, so Stevie may yet be forced to do the right thing.

 

On a positive note, there are more signs of progress in a number of fusion efforts, especially the PolyWell effort funded by the U.S.N. How positive? Indications are that the PolyWell approach can be scaled up, and "production" units for producing hydro could arrive before 2020.

[goinbroke2]

Why do you say he hates AECL? I've got two friends who are scientists there (were on the same softball team with my wife when I was posted to Pet) and although I don't talk to them as often as I used to, animosity from the conservatives has never been mentioned. Government is doing this or government doing that, but that has been since I knew them in '93. There is some serious issues going on there and has been for a number of years, a hell of a lot more than is in the media too.

 

I don't know, maybe I've never picked up on it I guess.

[Edstock]

It appears that consensus is that Stevie's regime has been somewhat awkward in this area; others too, like genetics.

[suv_guy_19]

Are you serious? The CBC??

 

Who should I have used? Fox News? The Onion? The National Enquirer?

 

The reality is, I read CBC and CTV both on a regular basis. I cite CBC more often because they make fewer mistakes and they generally have better journalist. Where media bias appear to lie also has a great deal to do with what you believe. I generally can see bias on both the left and the right. Generally, CBC News has little bias, even if other parts of CBC hang a left.

Edited December 9, 2009 by suv_guy_19

[fmccap]

Apparently, the world hasn't been cooling:

 

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/08/c...te-weather.html

 

 

The world is getting warmer...now, why?

Apparently they stop at 1850 for some reason. WHY?

 

Why does it do anything? Why was it a sheet of ice where you and I live? Why is it warm now? Why has it been getting cooler here also?

[goinbroke2]

STOP CAP, STOP!!! You can't question, you must blindly believe that a proven lie and "adjusted" facts that were told to you must be followed without question.

 

If I tell you it's raining, you must believe. Don't asks where my facts are because I got rid of them, but my "homogonized" data showing that it is raining is still here. If you want to verify my hypothesis, NO, I won't let you ruin my lifes work or more importantly destroy the anti raining cashcow that has seen my number and value of grants go from a couple hundred thousand dollars in the '90's to 19 million last year. I'll only go back to 1850 because any more will show that either I'm lying ( by getting rid of the midevil non-rain period) or will prove I'm wrong. Neither fits my agenda so..I'll stop where it does fit my agenda.

 

Oh and scooby, I mean suv, your line comparing fox news with the nation enquirer, "Who should I have used? Fox News? The Onion? The National Enquirer?" kind of says it all.

 

I now see why you don't find cbc left wing.

[Edstock]

I now see why you don't find cbc left wing.

 

Everybody has an opinion. Mine is that the CBC is fairly centrist in its positioning.

 

Please remember that the Canadian Conservative party has signed on with the Karl Rove attack mind-set. They have used American advisors to help fabricate their message. As well, the party published a hand-book on how to stymie parliamentary committees, so that only Conservative-approved ideas are passed.

 

The above are facts. So, we have a national news service that has to report on what that kind of mind-set produces.

 

To those who love the Harper Koolaid, just reporting stuff like this can be seen as "left-wing".

 

But, it's good to know that Stevie is fearless:

 

Wary of provocations, Stephen Harper sets foot in North Korea during DMZ visit

 

[goinbroke2]

Ed, I'm not going to start slamming you (which is common here) for redirection. I was only refering to the cbc.

This is three or four posts now where you are throwing in a slam of Harper..he wasn't in the conversation.

I was not mentioning anything political. Although I don't find Harper good or bad, he's the best of the worst so to speak. Basically you can have right to varing degree's with the conservatives, left to varing degree's by the liberals and ultra left wacko nut job by the ndp.

They are all politicians which by default make them crooks. The only difference I see is that at least the "right" crooks steal from things I don't like and the "left" crooks steal from the stuff I do like.

 

I see the cbc as DEFINATELY left with their politically correct programing etc. You don't, that's fine.

But I'm not going to make the jump that the cbc is left wing and the liberals did this and that and....

It's two different arguments.

 

 

Anyway, Global warming caused by man is a lie pure and simple. Follow the money is one avenue I suppose with grant money going through the roof for scientists who are on the MMGW bandwagon, but I don't think you have to even do that. Just use common sense, was the earth hotter? yes. Was the earth cooler? yes. I'm not talking warmer this year then last, I mean ice ages and warm periods over thousands or millions of years. If you say it has been different then now (and that is one thing everybody does agree on) then what is the right temp? And what caused it before man came along to influence it? And why is co2 still going up but the earth is cooling?

The biggest question besides what is the right temp is; if you have millions of years of heating and cooling, why do you only use the data for the last 150 years? Seriously, 150 years out of millions? Even out of thousands?

 

What is the mpg of your current vehicle? Do you measure the first 150km's and declare that your only getting 20mpg or do you run several tanks of fuel through it? And while your at it, mark down time for idling and not actually driving. Also difine the difference between highway and city. Summer/winter. The list goes on, it only makes sense the more data you have, the more accurate your final conclusion will be.

 

You get 30mpg, but in the same vehicle, I get 20 and come out with a scare monger story.

I won't give you my data so you can't prove me wrong.

I tell others in my group how to idle for long periods.

I tell others to drive everywhere fast as possible.

I tell people if anybody questions my facts I'd rather throw them out then have then disproven.

I tell others to only do the testing during cold winter months for minimal milage.

 

What a slap in the face to real scientists everywhere.

[Edstock]

Ed, I'm not going to start slamming you (which is common here) for redirection.

I wasn't; the comment was about left-wing bias about the CBC. Well, to talk about the left, we have to talk about the right, and I did not know if you knew about the Harper office importing the Karl Rove Playbook.

 

Why did I mention it? Because of all the Conservative attack efforts that they have been doing for almost 3 years now. That's the atmosphere that the CBC gets to report on. Canadian parliamentary politics has never been so adversarial, thanks to the Karl Rove Playbook.

 

Because of this, just commenting on the latest Harper screw-up seems like left-wing, when all it is is reporting what just happened.

[suv_guy_19]

Oh and scooby, I mean suv, your line comparing fox news with the nation enquirer, "Who should I have used? Fox News? The Onion? The National Enquirer?" kind of says it all.

 

I now see why you don't find cbc left wing.

 

Actually, I was simply tying to cleverly refer to the National Post.

[suv_guy_19]

Also, I think its important to point out that I was joking generally. I don't believe in MMGW...I do believe in climate change, and I do believe we play a part.