Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

page: 12
179
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 





You're a bunch of clowns and what I've always found is that YOU cannot back up your claims except with complete BS and pseudo-science that you read on some right-wing conspiracy blog.

I'm yelling because you're behaving like children regarding a very serious matter.


Hmm - yes a very serious matter - the fate of the world from warmageddon and the spending of billions upon billions on failed green energy boondoggles, not to mention vast redistribution of wealth schemes, should be based upon the most serious and careful deliberation.

Above all it should be kept out of the hands of incompetent and decietfull children, eco activists, ignorant politicians, idealogues and megalomaniacs.




Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]




“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

noconsensus.wordpress.com...-12598




posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Can you really blame them for subjugating the world with false data? Let's be honest with each other; most of the world is made of intellectually immature sheep. How can you expect to be treated as anything other than a servant when most of the planet elects politicians with less scrutiny than they use to pick fruit?

You get what you pay for -



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManlyHall
Can you really blame them for subjugating the world with false data? Let's be honest with each other; most of the world is made of intellectually immature sheep. How can you expect to be treated as anything other than a servant when most of the planet elects politicians with less scrutiny than they use to pick fruit?

You get what you pay for -


Indeed - but this is not simply a case of 'enlightened scientists' railroading the masses for their own good, no matter that some of them obviously see it that way. It is a case of the Usual NWO suspects, via the usual problem reaction solution. Thiis is being led and created by the Politicians and their NWO owners not scientists.



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
All someone would have to do, is a small experiment by themselves.

Proof That Global Warming I Junk Sience!!

Besides, anyone with half a brain, who's been alive since before the whole 'Global Warming Scare' of the late 1980's, and early 1990's, knows that what was predicted back then never occurred.
Now, our teachers and scientists back then may not have been very good prophets..... Or, they may have just been making sh@t up?

Also read:


More Al Gore Press



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



>> WITHOUT AGW -- we still have acidification of the oceans. It's a simple PH test that is hard to fake.


It's not about faking or not faking. It's about getting numbers to tell the story you want them to - which is exactly what a number of lead climate scientists have been doing (note: that does not mean the "best" - that means the ones who actually draft reports funded by government agencies and paraded around).

www.rationaloptimist.com...

...

Link: well Forbes wonders why the temperature isn't up if Human CO2 emissions went up 6% in one year.

Sure, testing pH at the wrong time, place, or just fudging the figures -- we've got no clue. However, I've talked to a Marine biologist, and he said he was concerned over the pH change and saw effects in the oceans -- is HE lying as well?

I look at the WSJ under Murdoch, and of course Forbes magazine -- they don't mention the Bank Scam that led to the financial collapse, and they blame "sub prime borrowers". Just like Fox News. Just like every Conservative I talk to.

If I don't know WHO to trust, I can usually know WHAT not to believe, if Fox and Friends is making an effort to tell me that it's all a lie.

And the anti-science I'm reading in the Forbes article -- using the idea that an increase in CO2 "must" result in a warmer year than the previous -- well, for a "fixed" Financial News source -- what a COINCIDENCE that they also accidentally botch a climate story -- what are the odds?




And the story of the earth, is that organisms DO GET WIPED OUT


Why do you think I look favorably upon eugenics?

Face it - most of you all have no business being alive and your children will never amount to anything - quit consuming the resources my genetics and legacy can use to do something useful.

Seriously.



>> I've had my suspicions about a LOT of anti-Global warming people who call it alarmism -- when not Evangelicals who figure God is going to rescue them from a doomed planet,.. what are they? Thanks for clearing that up.

Seriously -- you are actually saying; "there is no global warming" -- but you LIKE Eugenics because it means we can adapt to the SHTF situations.

...I love science, and I figure people are going to "upgrade themselves" and genetically enhance -- however, our knowledge is a bit too basic to mess with this too much at the moment. .. and perhaps you don't understand that Eugenics is selective breeding and "getting rid of" undesirable people.

I think you only need to capture some people from Virginia cole mining towns, or whoever lasts in Darfur -- and breed more of them. Unfortunately, the history of Eugenics has been Mormons or Aryan and THEY kind of go after tall, blonde, blue-eyed and dumb as their model for "fittest."

Humanity is OUT of the Darwin version of Evolution game -- but unfortunately, all the people LEAST deserving of propagation, still BELIEVE in killing off the undesirables. I'm sure that "compassion and empathy" will be cut out of the genes like large noses.

... is there an OPT OUT form I can sign where I don't follow all the Elitists and Billionaires who want to kill off all the Useless Eaters -- please?



Capitalism, is pretty much like a metastasizing Cancer

Yes, capitalism is to blame.

That yellow haze Korea has to worry about wafting over from China is better for your health than Leninade and has double the amount of communism.

The problem isn't an economic model. The problem is people being lazy and lacking ambition to achieve ideals.


I see your response reconfirms my opinion that Capitalism can NO LONGER be trusted. Top economists have, while seeing Capitalism as a great way to get progress, have often warned of "unrestricted capitalism".

However, too many people have been indoctrinated into "Capitalism as a Religion" and of course, blame it's destruction of people's lives on "Laziness."

In 2008 -- our banking system collapsed, and it was also a "top year" for profits -- worker productivity was the highest in HUMAN HISTORY.

>> Yet, like a broken watch, the Pro-Capitalism advocate, says; "lazy people." The "there is no global warming" advocate says; "But things will adapt and the BEST humans will survive."

EVERYBODY who is a Libertarian or Free-Market radical sees themselves as "Mad Max" -- the bad ass that survives the apocalypse. Countries around the world train their soldiers by breaking them down and then building them up - and making sure they don't picture themselves as dying, and their actions as heroic.

People who advocate for Darwinism are Capitalists -- and Optimists!



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by moondoggy2
All someone would have to do, is a small experiment by themselves.

Proof That Global Warming I Junk Sience!!

Besides, anyone with half a brain, who's been alive since before the whole 'Global Warming Scare' of the late 1980's, and early 1990's, knows that what was predicted back then never occurred.
Now, our teachers and scientists back then may not have been very good prophets..... Or, they may have just been making sh@t up?

You need to have LINKS to these predictions that failed.
Now, I do recall the ONE "science paper" that predicted a global freeze -- and it's been taken out of context by every Deniar who ever graced the web -- and keeps getting brought up, even after it's been soundly PROVED that it was not a Peer reviewed theory from Climatologists, but a magazine article in a Science journal.

WE could also say; "Scientists have been wrong, and sometimes they prove they are wrong -- they try to do better."

It isn't 100% fact that we have AGW - but it's more like 97% likely. If we had a 10% chance of getting hit by an asteroid -- I'd want to do something about that.

If you think that scientists have "made sh@t up" -- then please put forth your evidence.



Also read:


More Al Gore Press



From your sage explaining how "Global Warming is Junk Science":
Now, a little education for you, (and I'm 100% certain that the scientists behind the Global Warming Theory know this too), about water. It's a weird liquid. When is freezes, it's particles actually expand, not contract.

Wow. Next I suppose he will explain how the sun is hot.
The ICE expands just at freezing, and then stops. It's the TINIEST amount, because the "crystallization" creates a structure that takes up more space than does COLD water.

However, take a look at the "density of water" LINK
After about 10 degrees Celsius it starts expanding again. LESS dense means more area.

>> But the BIG sea-water raising issue is the masses of ice that can FLOW into the ocean - it doesn't even have to melt. The Melt Rate gave us some time -- but what Climatologists have realized is that if massive ice sheets have fast-melting water, they can "flow" into the ocean -- and this is what we are seeing.

Take a full glass and add some ICE CUBES and then tell us about the expansion rate.
Take a full glass of water that is JUST ABOVE FREEZING and apply heat. The water will start spilling over the edge.

>> I figure being WRONG about this simple example, isn't going to mean you are going to have a revelation. Carry on with whatever you already believe...



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 

Granted that the ice cubes in glass argument is rubbish - but the fact is the oceans are not rising, as we were all flatly assured they would.

As for being aware of only one false AGW prediction - it seems you have not been paying attention..............



"Notorious" Bias Affects IPCC Climate Models - Unable To Successfully Predict Abrupt Climate Changes Read here.

The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study. Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change .........................www.c3headlines.com...





Severe Cyclones Striking Australia Declines By 60% - Exact Opposite of IPCC Climate Model Predictions Read here.

The climate predictions of the IPCC, its climate models and "experts," such as Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye and Jeff Masters have been robustly abysmal. As the world struggles with unprecedented and severe financial and economic disasters, the shrill, self-centered, non-scientific incompetence of climate science alarmism continues to be shouted by egotistical personalities regardless of the scientific evidence.





Another Stupendous IPCC Prediction Failure: Global Warming Will Cause Crop Failure & Starvation Read here. The IPCC Climategate scientists, and other taxpayer funded alarmist scientists, have long predicted that global warming would cause catastrophic crop failure leading to mass starvation. Unfortunately for the left/liberal alarmists, this 2011 growing season's bumper crops are again proving how wrong the United Nation's IPCC and climate alarmist predictions are - their constant prediction failure is simply a systemic characteristic of the embarrassingly feeble AGW-CO2 hypothesis.



there are plenty more..........................www.c3headlines.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 





You're a bunch of clowns and what I've always found is that YOU cannot back up your claims except with complete BS and pseudo-science that you read on some right-wing conspiracy blog.

I'm yelling because you're behaving like children regarding a very serious matter.


Hmm - yes a very serious matter - the fate of the world from warmageddon and the spending of billions upon billions on failed green energy boondoggles, not to mention vast redistribution of wealth schemes, should be based upon the most serious and careful deliberation.

Above all it should be kept out of the hands of incompetent and decietfull children, eco activists, ignorant politicians, idealogues and megalomaniacs.




Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]




“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

noconsensus.wordpress.com...-12598


You just proved me right. You have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



Sure, testing pH at the wrong time, place, or just fudging the figures -- we've got no clue. However, I've talked to a Marine biologist, and he said he was concerned over the pH change and saw effects in the oceans -- is HE lying as well?


I know several Marine Biologists - depending upon how you construe the term to mean those currently employed in the field or those who hold degrees in marine biology. Their opinions vary on the issue.

Once again, in a system as large and dynamic as the planet, it is very difficult to establish any semblance of an average, much less deviance from that average.


I look at the WSJ under Murdoch, and of course Forbes magazine -- they don't mention the Bank Scam that led to the financial collapse, and they blame "sub prime borrowers". Just like Fox News. Just like every Conservative I talk to.


... Do what? What's that got to do with anything?

I'll take the bait, though. The problem was caused by government policies that encouraged sub-prime lending. In a truly free market economy where banks were held financially liable for their stated account debits/credits (and not backed by the federal reserve at every corner), then the problem would have never been able to become so large.

Linking that back into the discussion - an overbearing, over-intrustive government gives the false-impression of security. "They are certified. It's all good!" Yet, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the largest institutionalized cases of a ponzi scheme in human history.


>> I've had my suspicions about a LOT of anti-Global warming people who call it alarmism -- when not Evangelicals who figure God is going to rescue them from a doomed planet,.. what are they? Thanks for clearing that up.


. . . Huh?


Seriously -- you are actually saying; "there is no global warming" -- but you LIKE Eugenics because it means we can adapt to the SHTF situations.


No, I look favorably upon eugenics because I am eternally frustrated with the comparative stupidity of the average person.


...I love science, and I figure people are going to "upgrade themselves" and genetically enhance -- however, our knowledge is a bit too basic to mess with this too much at the moment. .. and perhaps you don't understand that Eugenics is selective breeding and "getting rid of" undesirable people.


No, I know what eugenics is. I have requested people go find a fire to perish in on multiple occasions, and offered assistance in the matter, should they require it.

Genetic modification is all well and good, but starting with garbage won't really be much of a start.


Humanity is OUT of the Darwin version of Evolution game


Hardly. The conditions of selection have merely changed. We are still subject to the forces of nature, whether we want to believe that or not. When the going gets tough - the tough get going; it doesn't matter the cause.


-- but unfortunately, all the people LEAST deserving of propagation, still BELIEVE in killing off the undesirables. I'm sure that "compassion and empathy" will be cut out of the genes like large noses.


Ah, and therein lay the paradox and the hypocritical nature of it all. "They are elitists and believe they can determine who should live and who shouldn't! They shouldn't be reproducing and/or living!"


... is there an OPT OUT form I can sign where I don't follow all the Elitists and Billionaires who want to kill off all the Useless Eaters -- please?


Not the way you're going, there isn't.


I see your response reconfirms my opinion that Capitalism can NO LONGER be trusted.


. . . No, no it doesn't. China is a communist nation and has the worst record of pollution out there.


However, too many people have been indoctrinated into "Capitalism as a Religion" and of course, blame it's destruction of people's lives on "Laziness."


My comment went right over your head, little buddy.

Running a business isn't about doing everything as cheaply as possible. You have obligations and standards to meet - many of which are set by your customers, others by third-party auditors (ISO), and the executives/owners. Cost-effective doesn't mean irresponsible or destructive.

The problem is that people are lazy - under any economic system. They will dump # wherever without thinking. It's not something unique or confined to capitalism.


People who advocate for Darwinism are Capitalists -- and Optimists!


.... Okay.

Your argument is pretty irrelevant, as all human beings are subject to mortality and the laws of entropy. Those that are the best at adapting to the environment around them will be the ones who prosper, irregardless.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


"All Oceans are not rising as we were assured they would."

ALL? It takes about 50 years to DISTRIBUTE water levels from one point in the ocean to all others -- that was hard for me to wrap my head around, but you could think of it as a VERY WIDE and slow river, where the "gradient" of drop is only a few inches per 1000 mile -- we don't have anything that flat on land to compare it to.

I could google to find the source on that - but it's not the central point; namely, the Models predicted a centimeter over decades. That was pushed up when it was realized that Glacial ice didn't need to MELT for large masses to move into the ocean.

The thing is -- we are SEEING results consistent with the predicted models. I just wish the denying websites weren't putting up straw men models to knock down. A recent Koch funded study to figure out why homes in Corpus Christi were flooding concluded that; the ocean in Texas was rising due to global warming, and it was slightly faster than the models predicted.

>> However, we seem to have entered the "Tobacco Science era" -- where the Denier 2.0 groups are smarter, funding is more hidden, and they produce reams of their own data. Having read some "analysis" of IPCC emails -- it's clear that even on the "sober sites" it's full on spin of innocuous comments. While claiming that AGW promoters don't show the emails in context, they proceed to butcher emails that we can never be sure of as DOCUMENTS.

We live in a money-driven corporate world, and to read that some Scientists are "trying to make conclusions obvious" for non-scientists, or are maximizing press coverage by working the system, is about as "mind blowing" as to read the same strategies in the marketing department at EVERY corporation you might work at.

It's like the criticism of Al Gore directed at his making of money. Actually, it's quite a modest sum compared to the usual "speaking fees" for former politicians who sold out government largess to industries -- Gore could be making a quarter million from a pop like the rest of the Biostittutes. If you don't SELL SOMETHING in this Corporatist world -- you starve. The media will ridicule you and take your lunch money if you don't have a way to manipulate the media. So "hyperbole" or media savvy alone is not enough in my mind to tell me if I should listen or not.


>> All the "fear big Government" or fear "climate regulation" points I think should be considered. I FEAR Big Government -- but when I think of "Big", I use the word; "corrupt." It's not about the money or number of people -- which grows MORE under Republicans (on average) than Dems -- it's about how corrupt government is.

"Government" is both Homeland Security, TSA Agents and people taking your paperwork at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Carbon Taxes and the like might not work well -- or they might work well. That is a different debate. What COULD be abused by "Environmentalists" is used to ignore what damage is resulting right now from Fracking, Cole Slurries, and the day-to-day impact of our energy system. Human created cities create "heat islands" that are 10 degrees warmer (on average) than the suburbs -- to say that Humans have "little impact" is to ignore the millions of square miles in roads, roofs, and dredges swamps that physically alter the landscape if nothing else. But each Square Foot of "blacktop" likely absorbs a few million more calories per year than the same area would if it were a tree or a rock.

I don't need a scientist to tell me that humans have an impact -- it's an uphill battle to say that we don't. The only debate is WHAT impact we have. So just denying humans effect the planet -- kind of kills credibility in my mind.

And they money backing a DENIAL is huge. There is so much more money in the Status Quo of our carbon-based economy that to say the "green-washing" is merely about greed is astounding. We erect statues to greedy people and name roads after them -- not many scientists get roads named after them?


I don't want to debate the "culture war" angle on this. We need to recognize that we have an imperfect system -- not only in science, but anywhere you look. Denying Global Warming based on these "pedestrian" attacks on credibility is ignoring reality.

If we had an asteroid heading to earth, and astronomers were saying it was a 50% chance, and corporations who didn't want a "asteroid deflector tax" were saying that was an exaggeration. And the claims that such a tax would "kill our economy" fly in the face of observed reality -- as this country grew fastest under taxes much higher than today, and collapsed with much lower taxes prior to 2008.

>> In summary; Big Gov = Bad, Corrupt Gov = Worse. Fudging data is everywhere.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



ALL? It takes about 50 years to DISTRIBUTE water levels from one point in the ocean to all others -- that was hard for me to wrap my head around, but you could think of it as a VERY WIDE and slow river, where the "gradient" of drop is only a few inches per 1000 mile -- we don't have anything that flat on land to compare it to.


This is blatantly false. Tsunamis are caused by unequal distribution of water masses - and they move a # ton faster than "around the earth in 50 years" - unfortunately. Not to mention, the major force of a hurricane is due to the low-pressure zone actually causing the local sea level to rise.


I could google to find the source on that - but it's not the central point; namely, the Models predicted a centimeter over decades. That was pushed up when it was realized that Glacial ice didn't need to MELT for large masses to move into the ocean.


The models are bunk. Where you would notice ocean level rises the most is on the equator.

"Aim, there are sinking islands."

Some, yes - but hardly a global phenomena. Those islands that are sinking are, interestingly enough, sinking due to the agricultural practices that pump water around and cause imbalances in the sediment that comprises the local soils.


The thing is -- we are SEEING results consistent with the predicted models.


No, we are seeing instances that can be used to further the agenda. Flooding near the ocean is nothing new.


A recent Koch funded study to figure out why homes in Corpus Christi were flooding concluded that; the ocean in Texas was rising due to global warming, and it was slightly faster than the models predicted.


Holy God... link to the actual study, not that pathetic author's patch of rambling (speaking of eugenics...).

Again, this is nothing new - and I would argue that the most likely explanation of the phenomena is to be found in the sediment structure. When building near the coast, you cannot build as you would in areas where bedrock is above sea-level. Water will 'wick' up through sediment above sea level, and homes will sink into what is very similar to quick-sand if you set a foundation too deep.

[declining to reply to irrelevant rant]


I don't want to debate the "culture war" angle on this. We need to recognize that we have an imperfect system -- not only in science, but anywhere you look. Denying Global Warming based on these "pedestrian" attacks on credibility is ignoring reality.


I find it amusing how you can be so certain that the system is corrupt, and yet still be so certain of the validity of global warming claims - which come mostly from government-funded studies (run by politicians who can freely participate in what is known as "insider trading"). The government can, literally, attempt to create its own market, establish taxes to prop that market up, and purchase stock in companies entering that market.

Pretty #ed up.

Which is why I don't partake of the global warming kool-aid.

Sure - the climate is changing. It's always changing - wouldn't be a dynamic, chaotic system if there wasn't change.

Defining what that change is, and where it will be 50 years from now... not nearly so easy. Nor is assigning a single causal factor to any given change in the system.



>> In summary; Big Gov = Bad, Corrupt Gov = Worse. Fudging data is everywhere.


Except in the case of global warming. That would be absolutely impossible.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


There is so much STUFF that differs in our world view that I don't think "Global Warming" can cover it.

As much as YOU see your ideas as reasonable, they seem to me more based on FEAR of social and government issues that are there REGARDLESS of what is done about human impact on the planet. When I read your replies -- I don't see that they really show comprehension of my point...

.... so I'll try this one more time, but on a different tack -- because I'm just too lazy right now to digg up PROOF of everything I'm saying -- but believe me, I don't make statements that I don't have evidence for -- even if it is my one "working theory of the Universe." My guesses usually end up in text books ...

>> Your comments about economics -- it's part and parcel with how you view both the problems and solutions.

What is strange, is that you both recognize that their MIGHT be a problem, but you LOOK for reasons to say that "humans aren't causing GW or maybe GW is a good thing" -- because you truly fear the GOVERNMENT solution.

Whether government does a damn thing about the environment or economics or not -- it's all about CORRUPTION. Small or big CORRUPT government always causes a problem.

The 2008 collapse and bail out of Washington was no more caused by sub-prime loans than horses at a race track CAUSE gamblers with a problem to go bankrupt. Horses got to run or become dog food, and any poor person who can get a home is going to try.

Fanny Mae was the dumping ground for Bad Loans -- and those making the loans knew it -- that's why they sold the loans int he first place. It wasn't the "Big Government" part of Fannie May that caused the problem -- it was because Fannie HAD TO TAKE THE bundled crap from profiteering Banks.

So much of the time, the complaint of regulations are crocodile tears. Big Businesses lobbied for MOST of the regulations that government creates. Nobody forces banks to loan to people who cannot pay -- but of course, the "fair housing policies" get blamed. If a Mexican family cannot pay and a White family cannot pay -- there is absolutely NO LAW or regulation on the books anywhere that force that. However, there are plenty of talk show hosts who will tell you there are.


The problem was caused by government policies that encouraged sub-prime lending. In a truly free market economy where banks were held financially liable for their stated account debits/credits (and not backed by the federal reserve at every corner), then the problem would have never been able to become so large.


Sure -- but who made sure the Banks were "backed" in the first place but Bank Lobbyists? GOVERNMENT here, is the tool that our election process made it -- mainly, a money driven monkey wrench.

In a truly market based system -- look, the banks that SOLD these loans made out like bandits. You cannot blame the fragility of a Free Market system on the idea that it would have worked if it had been more free -- when we are IN THE FREEST system right now. Other than a bit of paperwork -- there is very little risk to a bank for selling a mortgage. The buyer has to get PMI and the bank can make MORE than the value of the home if there is a foreclosure, especially on a HUD home. Banks got to take those high interest payments because of the "risk", they buyer of the mortgage policy has to insure the loan with PMI, the forfeit and the bank gets the property and whatever has been paid -- they can then auction off the home, and take a write-off on the default.

If you google around for the figures -- you will find that the amount of mortgage losses on a strictly property value bases was hardly a hiccup. The entire economic collapse is being blamed on about $65 Billion in mortgage defaults.

>> What REALLY was the problem was over-leveraging -- EXACTLY what happened when Bankers were allowed to speculate with deposits as happened in the 1920's. They put these high risk (high interest) loans and bundled them with insurance, then the Bond Rating markets like Hoovers lied about the risk because they made more money on "consulting" for the companies they were rating. Then these got traded on CDS and other markets, and since the Bankers and Wall Street have so much influence, they got to take some of these instruments as deposits and bet them all over again.

FREE REIGN is what allowed the collapse -- if it weren't high risk loans on mortgages, it would have been "junk bonds" or it would have been Time Shares, or it would have been some other financial instrument where money could be made on money like Futures Contracts.

>> But REGARDLESS of my being aware of the MOUNTAIN of the collapse, and your focus on the MOLE HILL -- the reason you see that problem as "government regulation that helped the poor" and I see it as "government being controlled by robber barons" -- is all about indoctrination.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


There is so much STUFF that differs in our world view that I don't think "Global Warming" can cover it.

As much as YOU see your ideas as reasonable, they seem to me more based on FEAR of social and government issues that are there REGARDLESS of what is done about human impact on the planet. When I read your replies -- I don't see that they really show comprehension of my point...

.... so I'll try this one more time, but on a different tack -- because I'm just too lazy right now to digg up PROOF of everything I'm saying -- but believe me, I don't make statements that I don't have evidence for -- even if it is my one "working theory of the Universe." My guesses usually end up in text books ...

>> Your comments about economics -- it's part and parcel with how you view both the problems and solutions.

What is strange, is that you both recognize that their MIGHT be a problem, but you LOOK for reasons to say that "humans aren't causing GW or maybe GW is a good thing" -- because you truly fear the GOVERNMENT solution.

Whether government does a damn thing about the environment or economics or not -- it's all about CORRUPTION. Small or big CORRUPT government always causes a problem.

The 2008 collapse and bail out of Washington was no more caused by sub-prime loans than horses at a race track CAUSE gamblers with a problem to go bankrupt. Horses got to run or become dog food, and any poor person who can get a home is going to try.

Fanny Mae was the dumping ground for Bad Loans -- and those making the loans knew it -- that's why they sold the loans int he first place. It wasn't the "Big Government" part of Fannie May that caused the problem -- it was because Fannie HAD TO TAKE THE bundled crap from profiteering Banks.

So much of the time, the complaint of regulations are crocodile tears. Big Businesses lobbied for MOST of the regulations that government creates. Nobody forces banks to loan to people who cannot pay -- but of course, the "fair housing policies" get blamed. If a Mexican family cannot pay and a White family cannot pay -- there is absolutely NO LAW or regulation on the books anywhere that force that. However, there are plenty of talk show hosts who will tell you there are.


The problem was caused by government policies that encouraged sub-prime lending. In a truly free market economy where banks were held financially liable for their stated account debits/credits (and not backed by the federal reserve at every corner), then the problem would have never been able to become so large.


Sure -- but who made sure the Banks were "backed" in the first place but Bank Lobbyists? GOVERNMENT here, is the tool that our election process made it -- mainly, a money driven monkey wrench.

In a truly market based system -- look, the banks that SOLD these loans made out like bandits. You cannot blame the fragility of a Free Market system on the idea that it would have worked if it had been more free -- when we are IN THE FREEST system right now. Other than a bit of paperwork -- there is very little risk to a bank for selling a mortgage. The buyer has to get PMI and the bank can make MORE than the value of the home if there is a foreclosure, especially on a HUD home. Banks got to take those high interest payments because of the "risk", they buyer of the mortgage policy has to insure the loan with PMI, the forfeit and the bank gets the property and whatever has been paid -- they can then auction off the home, and take a write-off on the default.

If you google around for the figures -- you will find that the amount of mortgage losses on a strictly property value bases was hardly a hiccup. The entire economic collapse is being blamed on about $65 Billion in mortgage defaults.

>> What REALLY was the problem was over-leveraging -- EXACTLY what happened when Bankers were allowed to speculate with deposits as happened in the 1920's. They put these high risk (high interest) loans and bundled them with insurance, then the Bond Rating markets like Hoovers lied about the risk because they made more money on "consulting" for the companies they were rating. Then these got traded on CDS and other markets, and since the Bankers and Wall Street have so much influence, they got to take some of these instruments as deposits and bet them all over again.

FREE REIGN is what allowed the collapse -- if it weren't high risk loans on mortgages, it would have been "junk bonds" or it would have been Time Shares, or it would have been some other financial instrument where money could be made on money like Futures Contracts.

>> But REGARDLESS of my being aware of the MOUNTAIN of the collapse, and your focus on the MOLE HILL -- the reason you see that problem as "government regulation that h



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 




I'm getting whip-lash reading your response, dude.


What is strange, is that you both recognize that their MIGHT be a problem, but you LOOK for reasons to say that "humans aren't causing GW or maybe GW is a good thing" -- because you truly fear the GOVERNMENT solution.


You don't understand my position in the slightest.

The planet is a massive, dynamic system. Human interaction with that system is a similarly complex and dynamic process. The factors that have a role in determining the conditions of the planet go well beyond our ability to draw into account, much less monitor and compute with any kind of reliability.

The data being used to support the global warming argument is being fundamentally abused on a statistical level. In short - the entire base of statistical data supporting global warming would not pass an undergraduate class in statistics. The data cannot be used in the manner they are attempting to use it.

The issue of "Global Warming" started as a sort of intellectual curiosity - to take old records and see what changes could be seen between the two. The findings were published and they said: "huh, interesting, we seem to be getting warmer." Environmentalists took up the opinion that it was because of pollution - and politicians took up that standpoint to give cause for regulatory standards. This paved the way for businesses to profit off of compliance with those regulations. Before you know it - you have the fastest growing segment of the economy and one of the fastest growing segment of research contracts.

I have my plans for an energy efficient home. Why? Because I hate reliance on other people.


Fanny Mae was the dumping ground for Bad Loans -- and those making the loans knew it -- that's why they sold the loans int he first place. It wasn't the "Big Government" part of Fannie May that caused the problem -- it was because Fannie HAD TO TAKE THE bundled crap from profiteering Banks.


The smaller banks would not have been able to sell mortgage backed securities if Fannie and Freddie were not backed by the Federal Reserve. Because of this - Fannie and Freddie stocks were treated as government bonds (indeed, they served the purpose of government bonds issued to cover Federal Housing Administration policies).

Banks wouldn't have made the loans if they were actually liable for those loans - the FDIC pretty much ensures that your average bank customer has no reason to ever draw the practices of the bank into question - if it goes tits-up, the Federal Reserve has your back. .... Which is good, up until you realize that the banks only have 10% of their stated assets in reserve (this is actually permissible under the Federal Reserve system).

Which means the potential for up to 900% inflation exists during an economic meltdown and action on behalf of the Federal Reserve.

Of course - it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you can or can't afford a loan payment. Sure - the banks were participating in what was government institutionalized crime; but I'm not going to agree to a payment I cannot reasonably accommodate. And if my financial circumstances change - I'm going to be talking to my bank and telling them that they are going to have to work with me. I don't get to throw my hands up in the air sixteen months later and say: "This payment is too much! It's criminal!"


Big Businesses lobbied for MOST of the regulations that government creates.


Which is why we should enact a standing policy that the national government doesn't regulate businesses or business affairs except when the supreme court acts to moderate contract disputes or constitutional legality of state regulations on businesses.

[quuote]If a Mexican family cannot pay and a White family cannot pay -- there is absolutely NO LAW or regulation on the books anywhere that force that. However, there are plenty of talk show hosts who will tell you there are.

You fail to understand - it is the contract you enter into. Bank loans you money - you pay back money with interest. If you don't pay back the money, the bank has the authority to repossess any collateral signed over as part of the contract.

It isn't rocket science, kiddo.


You cannot blame the fragility of a Free Market system on the idea that it would have worked if it had been more free -- when we are IN THE FREEST system right now.


This is quickly turning into an economics debate in a AGW thread....... *sigh*... comes with the territory, I suppose.

The Federal Reserve does not represent a free market system. It is not a free market when the banks are excused from financial liability by the federal reserve system. That is what is called "crony capitalism." It's not the free market.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




. . . No, no it doesn't. China is a communist nation and has the worst record of pollution out there.



However, too many people have been indoctrinated into "Capitalism as a Religion" and of course, blame it's destruction of people's lives on "Laziness."


My comment went right over your head, little buddy.



I'll let that pass. It wouldn't boost my ego one way or another to point out how I was talking about the IMPLICATIONS of what you said …

China has the WORST record on pollution because the PEOPLE who make the decisions are NOT affected by their outcome. Whatever you call the "ism" -- it's all about who decides and who endures. Did you not notice that China is a very thriving CAPITALIST system right now that is kicking our butts economically?

In the USA; Did the FREE MARKET stop pumping out Phosphates in the water or was it Government regulation?

That question is rhetorical. If you want to find ANY instance where the "free market" collectively did something that REDUCED its own power and forced it to benefit the entire society rather than a narrow short-term goal, I would love to hear them. Business can do great things. But only when forced to. If you have no standards -- than the company that cuts the most corners is ALMOST ALWAYS going to outcompete the company with standards. Apple Computer is merely the exception that defines the rule. Steve Jobs was merely a benign dictator that wanted to do something the right way, and he got lucky and people bought his products -- against all historical trends and sense.

What seems to lead to environmentalism is; more people controlling their destiny and education to make good decisions. You cannot get an educated populace hoping that the McDonalds subsidy will welcome in science -- there is no "feedback" mechanism that would guarantee that a corporation pay for the road or rail line going to another corporation that doesn't give them money. But if we live in a system were we ONLY benefit ourselves -- then it collapses.

The term "enlightened self-interest" has lost the "enlightened" part in the USA. That's why we cannot deal with AGW and we cannot "solve" problems. When we talk about getting off fossil fuels and improving our energy infrastructure - the talk is about why it can't be done.



Your argument is pretty irrelevant, as all human beings are subject to mortality and the laws of entropy. Those that are the best at adapting to the environment around them will be the ones who prosper, irregardless.


I'm wondering if you actually study ANYTHING about how real ecosystems work. The Lions do not constantly have an arms race with the gazelles. The "alpha male" Bull, actually watches the direction most of the cows face and "decides" to take the herd in that direction. A simplistic understanding of "entropy" and a simplistic understanding of "evolution" will of course lead a person to your conclusion.

Cockroaches can adapt faster to toxins we use on them than we can. If you were to look at HUMANS the same way as you apparently do "animals prospering by evolving" -- then you'd have to say that the most advanced humans on earth would be the Chinese and Indians -- as they have the largest populations. Whether high birth rates and high infant mortality are "ENJOYABLE" or not, that is still "prospering."

I AM aware that the Chinese have a 1 child rule - that's called "managing a problem you've identified." The BEST way to reduce a population is with empowering your citizens and education. Japan has a negative growth rate WITHOUT government enforcement -- and the US would as well if we didn't allow immigration.

>> Now, maybe an enterprising Rich Elite could come up with a virus that makes everyone on earth impotent -- and only the RIGHT people could have the antidote -- that's they ONLY way they are going to out proposer their Darwinian Experiment.

But wow -- this is so ignorant. Human society "is evolution" and so is our technology. In YOUR WORLD, Steven Hawkins would be dead because he couldn't move his own body to get a glass of water without assistance. Einstein was probably ADHD and "inferior" to the average Austrian. Plenty of brilliant people, don't do a great job at a "day to day" job. Einstein had to have an assistant follow him around for all the stuff he would forget or notes on chalk boards he failed to write down.

And I also know a few other MECHANISMS of Evolution and how we effect our DNA than merely "Darwin's theory" -- but of course, a simple understanding of this, which has not evolved beyond fifth grade, might lead someone to think Eugenics had merit.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Sorry for the "whip lash" -- but I'm trying my best to "dumb down" the conversation enough without being required to bring someone up beyond the Business 101 Economic Education and a "pamphlet view" of science -- so bear with me.

OK, ABOUT ALL CAPS -- I just don't like to always insert the bold symbol all the time, because this website couldn't program in a JavaScript routine that allowed "COMMAND + B" to take care of it. I don't think I was using CAPS beyond a few words -- but if you also want to comment on Grammar, I'll use shorter sentences too.


The planet is a massive, dynamic system. Human interaction with that system is a similarly complex and dynamic process. The factors that have a role in determining the conditions of the planet go well beyond our ability to draw into account, much less monitor and compute with any kind of reliability.

The data being used to support the global warming argument is being fundamentally abused on a statistical level. In short - the entire base of statistical data supporting global warming would not pass an undergraduate class in statistics. The data cannot be used in the manner they are attempting to use it.


Well, yes, Garbage In / Garbage Out. The point I was making about a "corrupt system" -- is really about falsified data. However; on the Denier side -- isn't the $400 Million+ profits made by just the Oil Industry per day, a bit more of an incentive to FIX THE FACTS than people studying for 10 years to get a grant? If Al Gore were to "recant his powerpoint presentations about Global Warming" -- I'm sure he would get a consulting gig for a Billion Dollars with no problem.

The only way to GET better data, is MORE government funding regardless of the results -- but that isn't the Science environment we have.

If you listen to National Public Radio -- you will notice now that they've got "sponsors" and most every one of their largest sponsors now, is one of the dirty, corrupt corporations like DuPont or ADM that they exposed in the past. The economics experts on PBS come from Harvard and Wall Street. It's kind of a "Garbage In/ Garbage Out" system that doesn't really challenge the perception that "everything is just fine" -- which it isn't.


>> I can believe that there COULD be a conspiracy of Climatologists -- because Corporate America brought us all the wonderful doctors who lied about smoking cigarettes for a few decades. It's not like we haven't been duped before, right?

It just seems to me, that, even NOT knowing the facts of what data was collected on temperatures over here and over there; that the INCENTIVE to lie is on the side of the Deniars. The track record of falsifying data -- just really hasn't been proven by the "climate gate" -- because I can READ, and I also have a memory of the falsified signatures that the Koch funded groups like Heritage were spitting out. The same company that funneled money to hire Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas' wife to allow "corporate money to equal speech" is once again the Heritage Foundation -- like so many of these Think Tanks, supplying "evidence" of the wonders of all the globalist policies that our government has adopted, and then blaming their inevitable failures on whatever Union or social policy stood in the way.


>> Yes, my thinking goes "far afield" from the simple topic at hand -- because like the Global Warming Science -- it's complex, human impacts and the environment can be subtle. But we are lucky that some people are smart enough to become scientists -- and while we know that we can never be 100% sure, or take things on blind faith -- we do know that when people are NOT corrupted, and work in earnest -- there is nothing they CANNOT SOLVE.


>> Ask me how to solve anything -- and I can come up with a few decent answers. But I doubt that the Free Market can solve GW when there is profit in making things worse. You might be buying your future drinking water from an oil company, or using solar power when they own the patents to the best solar cells.

I ultimately don't think Global Warming became controversial because of the science -- it was entirely the Polluters who funded and added rancor to the discussion -- I can track their little footprints all the way back to the clumsy first efforts, and marvel at how sophisticated the FUD has become.
edit on 30-11-2011 by VitriolAndAngst because: QUOTE nesting was broken.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 



In the USA; Did the FREE MARKET stop pumping out Phosphates in the water or was it Government regulation?


I wasn't aware the problem was resolved.


That question is rhetorical. If you want to find ANY instance where the "free market" collectively did something that REDUCED its own power and forced it to benefit the entire society rather than a narrow short-term goal, I would love to hear them.


Take a look around you. Government didn't fund the development of the device you are using to spout this nonsense. Government didn't create the internet (no one really did... it just sort of 'happened'). Plastics are another prime example - a material we couldn't survive without is comprised of byproducts of gasoline refinement that would otherwise be burned as sludge. The shift to solid-state electronics over vacuum tubes. The shift to MOS-based microcircuits over TTL...

Modular homes.

That is the recent stuff. All that existed, going back over a hundred years ago, was the free market - proof of concept, right there.


If you have no standards -- than the company that cuts the most corners is ALMOST ALWAYS going to outcompete the company with standards.


In the short term, this can be true. However - why do most people buy from authorized car dealerships rather than Joe's Outback Auto?

Why is Kellog's still in business despite Great Value, Always Save, and General Mills having their own versions of almost every product they have to offer?

Sure - they advertise the living piss out of that stuff, but there's more to it than that. People have their preferences, and sometimes the brand-name really is superior to the off-brand. In consumables, I'm not that picky; but when it comes to electronics and engineered devices - I am incredibly picky, and prefer the quality engineered product from a company I have come to believe is, on the whole, responsible and appreciative of its customer base.


Apple Computer is merely the exception that defines the rule.


Nike
Intel
Sony
Craftsman
New Balance (have you even heard of them?)
. . . whatever shirts are popular these days
DeWalt

- All of those are your "premium" companies or brands that have been able to remain successful. There are far more cases in every industry you look at. Sometimes their competitors release a better product. Sometimes, they don't. You pay more for those brands in most cases, anyway.


The term "enlightened self-interest" has lost the "enlightened" part in the USA. That's why we cannot deal with AGW and we cannot "solve" problems. When we talk about getting off fossil fuels and improving our energy infrastructure - the talk is about why it can't be done.


You have to actually understand what you are trying to do before you can make an effort to do it.

We do not have the capability to eliminate use of fossil fuels within any foreseeable future. Even if we completely shift off of fossil fuels for energy - the oils we rely upon for much of our industries comes from the refinement of crude oil and there are no other sources capable of meeting demand. Further - the crux of many industries is the availability and versatility of plastics - also derived from refinement of crude oil and having no other sources capable of meeting demand (plastic would rapidly begin to match metals like aluminum and copper in price if we were to completely remove fossil fuel refinement as an option).

The components necessary to switch off of a fossil fuel industry simply don't exist. For now, we will have to suffice to find ways of becoming more efficient - which is what will happen. Hydrocarbon fuel-cells will be one of the next major innovations that will change the way we look at energy from fossil fuels. When we do finally have the elements necessary to shift away from fossil fuels - it will be a rather quick transition and you'll see those fuel sources become like vacuum tubes, radio crystals, and relays to the transistor.


I'm wondering if you actually study ANYTHING about how real ecosystems work.


I'm wondering where in the hell you got the idea you have.

I grew up climbing trees and following creeks/rivers, kid. The being with the traits most suited to handling the conditions it is presented with has the greatest chance of survival. We don't get to dictate the terms - we only get to choose how to react to nature - which will always reign supreme over our existence.



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   
OK, so I checked SOME of the comments from foia2011.org...

I tried to find the ORIGINAL emails in context, but the links wouldn't work -- so I'm looking at the "damming evidence" in these excerpts.

What struck me was that this seemed a bit "informal" -- like a blog at times. The criticisms of another scientists paper "being crap and not worthy of being included" -- sounds like the NORMAL human dynamic in a bureaucracy.


>> Honestly, this one does sound bad;
Bradley:
I'm sure you agree--the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don't want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction".

But it COULD also be sour grapes or it could be someone who resents having to play politics. But, in good science, there is debate, and clearly, someone here is criticizing -- however, they are not doing it in a "scientific way" -- just an opinionated email.

Let me cover a few more and tell you how I read them;
Wilson:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.


What he seems to be CLEARLY SAYING to me is; We've got a model with "wide deviations" but we can normalize those and create a simpler model that has less chance to be MISCONSTRUED. When he is saying "honesty" -- its to the normal scientific process. The RESULT isn't wrong, merely they are pulling out the extreme deviations so everyone isn't looking at the noise. It's like "cleaning up" an image in PhotoShop -- you might take out really bright or dark pixels that show up in random locations so that everyone isn't noticing the "dust" or noise in the image -- your resulting image might not be HONEST about every bit of pixel data -- but everyone will see the same image as intended.

Wilson:
I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.


Without knowing the ENTIRE CHAIN of emails on this exchange -- I'm guessing that this is about seeing if their MODEL can predict what the actual data is. He is randomly generating time-seris so that he can BREAK his model -- meaning, that if the heat levels on average are rising and weather makes sense in the model -- it will be MOST like what we see. If you have a model that is bogus -- it will NOT BREAK, because the equation is fitting the data into a result.

If anything -- this is the EXACT IGNORANCE of data modeling that can be misconstrued that these scientists are so worried about. My brief flirtation with Statistics in computer lab allowed me to understand why you "play with the figures over time" in a model, and why you REMOVE OUTLIER data at times. But you have to be REALLY careful, because you can lie with statistics quite easily. The HARDEST things to do with statistics is to prove Causation.

Trenberth:
[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a Japanese.

Well, here it looks like Human Nature -- or perhaps more the stress of trying to MARKET an idea when it should merely be about science comes into play. Grabbing a document from the Japanese seems to help get more credibility so it isn't JUST the IPCC saying it. But it's also clearly an issue that they've got to "show an obvious and united front" -- possibly leaving out some reports that would NOT support AGW.

Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.


This is probably the most DAMMING thing I found. It clearly shows that they wan to CITE papers that support AGW and ignore everything else. Is that the PERFECTLY correct scientific thing to do? No. But is it reasonable to expect such fact-fitting from a defensive and embattled organization being pummeled by well-financed and profitable opposition using pseudo-science and cheri-picking ANY report that might disagree with a simple AGW message? Sure.


It's like a politician trying to get elected on a platform that is nuanced and brilliant -- but of course, if they don't DUMB IT DOWN for use in a debate, they will lose the election and have to explain; "Well, I was for the Bill before I was Against it." It's too much to ask of the Media and Public at large to



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Sorry to disturb the eggheads with more 'pamphlet science' thinking - but the Koch bro's pay me to do this - so:




1. The money and vested interests on the pro-scare side is vastly larger, more influential, and more powerful than that on the skeptical side. Fossil fuel and conservative-think-tanks are competing against most of the world financial houses, the nuclear and renewable energy industry, large well financed green activists (WWF revenue was $700m last year), not to mention whole government departments, major political parties, universities dependent on government funding, the BBC (there is no debate), the EU, and the entire UN.

2. Despite this highly asymmetrical arrangement, the skeptics are winning simply because they’re more convincing — they have the evidence. The other team avoid debate, try to shut down discussion (only their experts count), they imply the audience is too stupid to judge for themselves, and then call everyone who disagrees rude names. The dumb punters are figuring them out. Vale free speech. The evidence changed, but who wanted to know? When the evidence began rolling in showing how the assumptions were wrong, the graphs were flawed, the thermometers were biased, and the “expert” scientists were behaving badly — who exactly would benefit from risking their career, cutting off the cash cow, being exiled from friends and colleagues, and being called a “Denier” for speaking the truth?

The perpetual self-feeding cycle of alarmism has it’s own momentum — Create a scare and siphon up the taxes, fees, fines, charges and donations. As a bonus, activists feel like heroes, some collect awards and tributes while they trash the tenets of reason and logic, and hail false Gods of Science (as if any authority is above question). Others gratify base desires by pouring scorn on giants of science, dismissing 40 years of top service with one tenuous association (there’s a certain kind of appeal to a certain kind of person.)


joannenova.com.au...



posted on Nov, 30 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst
 


I think you summed-up the basic AGW dogma in your first sentence:


we've got no clue


At least for the masses with no understanding of the agenda, the facts, and their own socialist bent.

jw





new topics




 
179
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join