History of climate gets 'erased' online

page: 3
84
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by Long Lance
 



His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate

source

So the guy is a Nobel Peace Laureate, recieving such a title due to DEBUNKING an aspect of climate change is something that obviously discredits him


The rest of your post is just ad hominem attacks.

-actually, the fact that he corrected these apparent "scientists", and was widely recognized for pointing out their errors, says a lot about the abilities of these real scientists that you put your faith in. If he merely a policy maker, how does he catch a mistake that some 2000-2500 scientists miss?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by heyo]


didn't you guys all claim the Nobel Prize was worthless garbage cause Obama won it?

And like I said, the original chart has been shown to not be manipulated, but instead came from a limited number of data points.

In 2007 (maybe 2008) the guys went back and revised the chart including a LOT more data and guess what... the same outcome.

So in fact, the chart's findings have been validated, not debunked.

AND A SUPER SPECIAL BTW for repeating the lie that that Freemason claims about his Nobel PEACE Prize:

motherjones.com...

scienceblogs.com...

HE HAS NOT WON THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR ANYTHING!

Talk about discrediting yourself.

Again, people, learn to use google.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by seethelight

A) He's not a scientist.

B) He also thinks people with AIDS ahould be put into camps FOREVER.



if he is not a scientist, why is he making a lecture to a room filled with scientists on a scientific conference in Berlin?



well, every man can have an opinion, but this thread is not about AIDS it is about fraudulent climate scientists who are deleting data to push someone's agenda...

it seems that you also have an agenda here to attack people and derail the thread from it's purpose

you are so transparent




He's NOT A SCIENTIST.

So now talking to scientists makes you a scientist.

You Deniers are CRAZYPANTS.

The guy lies about winning a Nobel, lies about being a scientist and instead of trying to figure out if its true, you spread it around like government mayonnaise.

Show me ANY proof he's a scientist... go on.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by seethelight

A) He's not a scientist.

B) He also thinks people with AIDS ahould be put into camps FOREVER.



if he is not a scientist, why is he making a lecture to a room filled with scientists on a scientific conference in Berlin?



well, every man can have an opinion, but this thread is not about AIDS it is about fraudulent climate scientists who are deleting data to push someone's agenda...

it seems that you also have an agenda here to attack people and derail the thread from it's purpose

you are so transparent




If I claimed that Global Warming was a myth AND I claimed that the moon was made of snails you'd have every right to question my sanity and my veracity.

Same with this liar.

His bull# about AIDS is important because it shows (like everything else he does) how deranged and unstable he is.

NONE of you deniers have in ANY WAY refuted a thing I've said...

Though you have managed to make yourselves look quite foolish... thanks for the help.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

Though you have managed to make yourselves look quite foolish... thanks for the help.




I think you are the only one here making yourself foolish...



[edit on 22-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
In 2007 (maybe 2008) the guys went back and revised the chart including a LOT more data and guess what... the same outcome.


The DATA is the issue, not the chart. I have serious doubts about the validity of the DATA. Too many reports I have read have referred to "adjusted data" or "massaged data". So if you add more "adjusted data" why would the results change? Let's see what happens if you use RAW data. Oh wait. We can't, because they DELETED the data.

Bullsh*t quote of the new milenia so far. "The debate is over" - Al Gore



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by seethelight
In 2007 (maybe 2008) the guys went back and revised the chart including a LOT more data and guess what... the same outcome.


The DATA is the issue, not the chart. I have serious doubts about the validity of the DATA. Too many reports I have read have referred to "adjusted data" or "massaged data". So if you add more "adjusted data" why would the results change? Let's see what happens if you use RAW data. Oh wait. We can't, because they DELETED the data.

Bullsh*t quote of the new milenia so far. "The debate is over" - Al Gore


Back any of that up with proof.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by seethelight]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Monckton is neither a scientist nor a Lord.

He has a degree in the arts and was a Thatcher advisor. Most famous for making a puzzle, and more recently for making a complete ass of himself.

Wikipedia should be happy to have a scientist (ex now, Connolley has left to make mucho dinero in the private sector) giving their free-time to their project.

So with criticism of an actual scientist with expert knowledge helping on wiki to the raising of an ex-political hack cum ideologically motivated denier to scientist/expert status, I shall end with this:


The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstader teased out of the national DNA, although both of these things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects — for profit, mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know the best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from the rest of us, poor fool.


I suppose some would invoke the POMO-like Age of the Feuilleton.


[edit on 22-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Thanks for the story mate, great thread.

I would not put it past them to do this, but as it stands there are hard copies of recorded information regarding the climate change of our planets past concerning the medieval times elsewhere.

One scientist and a Wikipedia Administrator are not the voice of the world considering the amount of scientists that already have the data at hand.

If Wikipedia was edited, so what? It has no credibility at all.

Although, thanks for the info!


[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by seethelight

Though you have managed to make yourselves look quite foolish... thanks for the help.




I think you are the only one here making yourself foolish...



[edit on 22-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]


let's see, have I:

Posted Republican propaganda as fact?: No

Claimed people were scientists because they talked to scientists? No

Claimed people were Nobel Prize Laureates that weren't? No

Claimed that WND is a reasonable source? No

Claimed wiki articles were deleted which haven't been deleted? No

---

I'm not feeling to bad about my posts, though I feel sorry for those of you that can't see through a bunch of liars and their lies.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Yeah you're right. He lied about it.
Hmmm.
Good job.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv
Thanks for the story mate, great thread.

I would not put it past them to do this, but as it stands there are hard copies of recorded information regarding the climate change of our planets past concerning the medieval times elsewhere.

One scientist and a Wikipedia Administrator are not the voice of the world considering the amount of scientists that already have the data at hand.

If Wikipedia was edited, so what? It has no credibility at all.

Although, thanks for the info!


[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]


The only people that think WIKI is not credible are people that can't read sources.

And to reiterate.

This material has not been deleted from WIKI.

HAS NOT BEEN.

THIS ARTICLE IS NOT TRUE.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by seethelight]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by seethelight
 


Yeah you're right. He lied about it.
Hmmm.
Good job.


Thanks.

Now, consider what else he's probably lying about... such as Global Climate Change being a myth.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Perhaps it's time to start asking 'what won't they do' to push their various agendas? It seems just about anything. When is enough.. enough?


I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TPTB will literally do anything to bring about their plan, that they think they can get away with.

It's only a matter of time before we have another 'Pearl Harbor event' or two.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by shasta9600

Originally posted by GhostR1der
Perhaps it's time to start asking 'what won't they do' to push their various agendas? It seems just about anything. When is enough.. enough?


I'm convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the TPTB will literally do anything to bring about their plan, that they think they can get away with.

It's only a matter of time before we have another 'Pearl Harbor event' or two.


Unfounded paranoia



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Who [SNIP] thinks that what is written on Wikipedia is truth then if you belief you are a fool.

 


Profanity removed

[edit on 21/1/10 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by dune_mister
Who the # thinks that what is written on Wikipedia is truth then if you belief you are a fool.


People that know how to read sourcing and make up their own mind... that's who.

If you can't figure out how to use WIKI then I'm not surprised you believe liars like Lord I-falsely claim-to-be-a-Nobel-Laureate Monckton.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


No problem. The more information, the better. I gotta be honest though, I got a gut feeling about AGW, similiar to the one I had about Iraq. Personally, it's what has caused me to investigate it. I definately don't mind being corrected when i'm brought facts, such as monckton's credibility, and not interpretations that hold no more weight than my own

Monckton being a nobel laureate was something new to me, and it just so happened that the first site i went to corroborated that, so, I went with it.
It was a plastic one given to him by some scientist. It would have been ok if he referrenced it lightheartedly but he doesn't.

I think with cap'enhagen over, I'll be able to look at the subject with a little less panic. I'm doomed ponder the ulterior motives of any government's actions, especially of the types being discussed by the UN. It's a demon many on ats live with.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Great Article, S&F...

I Wonder (skipped most of the posts)

Has anyone ever backed up the Info somewhere?
I know when I go to Digg.com and I can't load the page due to server loads and such someone always posts a Mirror link for the article, a cached version.

I would like to D/L all the Original Climate Information Wiki had.

Any Tips, or leads?

End of Line......



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by the_denv

If Wikipedia was edited, so what? It has no credibility at all.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]


The only people that think WIKI is not credible are people that can't read sources.


Sources are just another man or woman's opinion.

Let me give you an example. I was in a rock band who had the name of "insert some random name here" (I aint saying which band), and our name was established before some other band came along 3 years later, stole my bands name and now WIKIPEDIA state that this other band where the people who created the name! Which I know first hand that is it complete and utter lies.

I am a victim of Wikipedia fraud, I tried to delete and edit the information and give proof in the past. But guess what? Wikipedia deleted it!

About 6 months ago I was sent a legal document from this (now famous) band, stating that they would want my MySpace account because its the original name (URL) of my band, which they stole the name of. I replied to that legal document and have NEVER heard anything from it.

Blatant lies.

Sources? Are you serious? I am living proof of how fraudulent Wikipedia are, so please get off your high horse. This thread might be a hoax, but saying that Wikipedia is credible is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard.

There is no way you could argue with my case, I am doing this legally through the courts. Wikipedia hosts lies and crap as well as facts. The very fact that you depend on Wikipedia and its sources, for truth, is worrying.

My reaction is due to your verbal attack on my intellect, do your own sourcing.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by the_denv

If Wikipedia was edited, so what? It has no credibility at all.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]


The only people that think WIKI is not credible are people that can't read sources.


Sources are just another man or woman's opinion.

Let me give you an example. I was in a rock band who had the name of "insert some random name here" (I aint saying which band), and our name was established before some other band came along 3 years later, stole my bands name and now WIKIPEDIA state that this other band where the people who created the name! Which I know first hand that is it complete and utter lies.

I am a victim of Wikipedia fraud, I tried to delete and edit the information and give proof in the past. But guess what? Wikipedia deleted it!

About 6 months ago I was sent a legal document from this (now famous) band, stating that they would want my MySpace account because its the original name (URL) of my band, which they stole the name of. I replied to that legal document and have NEVER heard anything from it.

Blatant lies.

Sources? Are you serious? I am living proof of how fraudulent Wikipedia are, so please get off your high horse. This thread might be a hoax, but saying that Wikipedia is credible is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard.

There is no way you could argue with my case, I am doing this legally through the courts. Wikipedia hosts lies and crap as well as facts. The very fact that you depend on Wikipedia and its sources, for truth, is worrying.

My reaction is due to your verbal attack on my intellect, do your own sourcing.


Can you prove any of what you just said?

The fact is that WIKI never stated that your band stole the name, what probably happened was the other band, not WIKI's staff, deleted your stuff because they thought it wasn't true.

If you contact a MOD on wiki they will not ignore you.

PM your bands name and I will personally contact WIKI for you... but you'll also need to give me some proof as it sounds like the other band beat you to the punch as far as deleting your stuff.

WIKI has NO agenda (at least that I could ever reasonably establish).

If you go on their boards you'll see people of ALL STRIPES arguing their cases...

The trouble is that its huge and relies, for better and worse, on people not being dicks....

when they find someone being a dick, they deal with it... I've seen it happen repeatedly.

I'm sorry you've had bad luck, but that doesn't mean that all material on WIKI is false or written to an editorial agenda... it just doesn't.

Learn to use their system and it'll work for you as long as you can back up your posts.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by seethelight]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by seethelight]





new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join