It's a cold, rainy day for Climate Change

bmulligan

bmulligan

CAGiversary!
Feedback
25 (100%)
In one email, Benjamin Santer from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., wrote to the director of the climate-study center that he was "tempted to beat" up Mr. Michaels. Mr. Santer couldn't be reached for comment Sunday.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
Click to expand...



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Ha, ha, ha. We have top men, TOP MEN, working on this...
And this isn't even including the damning emails from Tom Osborne to Mike Mann at the coveted Climate "research" institute. Unfortunately, it's too late. The fanatical left have already dug themselves in and are ready for any heretical attack on their religion. They already have the US administration and public opinion on their side of the paradigm so the Herculean task of truth will almost certainly fail in the shadow of Climate Change political momentum.

The lie that is Global Warmi- , ... I mean "Climate Change" will never die. Too many research grants depend on it.
 
What has amazed me the most (well, maybe disappointed is a better word) is how little play this has gotten in the MSM. Even then, much of the coverage is couched in the "hacked/illegal/stolen" language put forward by those trying to do a CYA action after their incriminating e-mails and documents were made public.

But remember, this is only one group of researchers among many. It's hard to believe that all of them are agenda-drive as these folks apparently are. Sadly, people like Phil Jones are the reason it's hard to even debate the issue, because if you express any doubts whatsoever that global warming is here and is catastrophic you are likened to a Holocaust denier.
 
First and foremost, repost.

Second, let's ask the people with the stolen emails if they are legitimate or heavily modified. If they're real, we can focus on whether their actions are criminal or not.

Third, let's politely ask other researchers to hand over their unmodified emails for similarities. If they don't, their public funding can be removed.

If it turns out the whole shebang is a scam, we can focus on who is paying them to fabricate.
 
So what is the point of all this gotcha journalism? Do you really want us to stop trying to clean up the planet because scientists can't prove that humans cause global warming?

So should we just build more "clean" coal plants since it doesn't matter?

Start ramping up Hummer production! Global warming doesn't exist so it doesn't matter if we burn gas a ridiculous rates.

No more tax credits for putting solar panels on your house. That money could go towards another war somewhere.
 
"gotcha journalism". Whatta phrase.

Anywhoo, to address your point, depascal - it's about the truth. For example, is the world better off without a madman like Saddam in power? Yes. Do the ends justify the means? Not at all. If Bush or Administration officials blatantly lied about the intelligence they had, then I fully wish for them to be brought up on charges.

It's like scaring kids away from smoking pot by telling them it funds terrorism and that joint they bought paid for 9/11.

Be truthful and honest.

Should we work toward a "greener" earth? Sure!

Should we work on raising energy costs, putting people out of jobs and destroying the economy (even more so) based on lies? Without this huge scare of global warming, perhaps we could put our efforts into making useful progress instead of trying to limit cow farts.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']That comes off like damage control. They obviously have to do damage control, but it still looks like it.[/QUOTE]

It seems more than plausible to me.

Much ado about nothing certainly describes the default mode of most global warming deniers.
 
So...I guess once this broke out, the polar ice caps stopped melting, right?

[quote name='UncleBob'] For example, is the world better off without a madman like Saddam in power? Yes. [/quote]

He did a hell of a job better than we are of stabilizing that region. I wonder what his secret was?

Don't bother coming back with rape rooms and shit, like I hear all the time. There's plenty of other dictators we don't touch, and certainly don't invade. So this nebulous "SADDAM WAS RELLY RELLY BAD!" argument never works.

If Bush or Administration officials blatantly lied about the intelligence they had
Click to expand...

Oh man. Tonight is a good night.
 
Strell: I'm not going to argue against the idea that there are various dictators around the world that the world would probably be a much better place if they weren't in power. But that doesn't mean I agree with invading their country, killing their soldiers and saying it's all for good. The ends don't justify the means.

In regards to Bush/Administration officials blatantly lying - has this been proven? Is it at all possible that they were just relying on faulty intelligence? -intelligence that most of the international community believed, to some extent or another? -faulty intelligence that Saddam himself was responsible for creating, as he admitted to?

Provide proof that they were just flat out lying about the intelligence and I'll be right behind you when you form the line to march on Washington to protest the lack of action being taken against them. Just let me know a little ahead of time so I can request off work.

Does FactCheck.org pass the truth-test for the general population here?
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

To say Bush and the others "lied," however, requires evidence that they knew the intelligence they were getting was wrong. The unanimous finding of the Intelligence Commission argues against that idea.
Click to expand...
 
I'd like to start by looking in the man sized file cabinet Cheney had. Or through all the destroyed material they wouldn't let anyone look at. See, you expect me to dig out a website that you'll just shout down as librul prop'ganda, and I'm not going to play that game.

So give me the stuff NO ONE has seen. THAT'S where I'd like to begin. Is that kosher with you?

You (Bushco) sell off a "slam dunk" and then can't find shit, and what do you do? You actually tell us? Lewis Black said it best - "It scares the SHIT out me that our government didn't keep up the lie! Send two kids to Kinkos with pictures of bombs and donkeys! They could have kept it up for years!"

I can buy faulty intelligence. But it's a really difficult sell when we were SO gung ho about it, alongside our total allies of Poland and the UK (read: not most of the international community), when that dood with the weird name couldn't find anything, when WE couldn't find anything, when Donald Rumsfield admits back in 2003 WMDs might not exist, when our official line of theory jumped a thousand degrees from "looking for bombs" to "maybe looking for bombs" to "getting rid of Saddam" to "installing democracy" to "trying to stabilize a region we upended" to "now we're looking for Al-Queda," et cet cetc etsdlkcjas;ldkfjhaucvahjfvdsf

Faulty intelligence? Fine. Then come out and fuckin' say it. We've just been hiding behind a wall of bullshit elaborately constructed from a bunch of very shrewd fat men who even now can't do anything but chastize any further efforts about ANYTHING without pulling out the scary fearmongering bullshit card.

But hey, this has plenty to do with the polar ice caps. They've stopped melting, right? I think the libruls finally set the thermostat lower. I'll have to ask my dad - he can subsonic hear that shit from miles away.
 
Strell I once challenged Bob to come right out and say Bush and crew acted in good faith.

He passed.

It is beyond any doubt Bob really doesn't believe half the shit he says.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Yes.
No.[/QUOTE]

Before you make those decisions, you might check some more things out...

http://www.factcheck.org/iraq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html
Congress - who voted for much of the actions taken against Iraq - was treated to virtually the same information Bush had.

[quote name='Strell']Faulty intelligence? Fine. Then come out and fuckin' say it.[/QUOTE]

So.. what you're saying is that all you want is to hear the truth? Because that's pretty much my point. Don't lie to us and say that man kind is causing global warming so we have to start regulating cow farts. Don't lie to us and tell us you're going to close GitMo within a year when you know it's not likely. Don't lie to us about what health care reform is going to cost. Don't lie to us about why you want to go to war. Don't lie to us about having sexual relations with that woman (actually, just look directly into the camera and say "It's none of your damn business."). Don't lie to us about chopping down the cherry tree.

Truth.


[quote name='Msut77']Strell I once challenged Bob to come right out and say Bush and crew acted in good faith.

He passed.

It is beyond any doubt Bob really doesn't believe half the shit he says.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I can't speak for what "Bush and crew" did. All I'm asking for is hard evidence that they flat-out lied. I can suspect my co-worker took $5 out of my locker, but I'm not going to accuse him of doing it unless I know he did it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry, I can't speak for what "Bush and crew" did.[/quote]

Then you aren't saying anything at all.

Same as it ever was.

Truth.
Click to expand...

You have repeatedly shown a spectacular capacity for dishonesty Bob.
 
Now I remember why I had you on ignore. The more replies you make, the less you add to the conversation. It's like some weird conversational black hole. Thanks for reminding me.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
Don't lie to us and say that man kind is causing global warming so we have to start regulating cow farts. [/quote]

You'll notice I haven't said a thing about global warming. I want to know if the polar ice caps are still melting.

Don't lie to us and tell us you're going to close GitMo within a year when you know it's not likely.
Click to expand...

Yeah! I'm sorry Obama has to clean up another mess left for him by a former administration whose whole idea with Gitmo was to run it forever, and now that he's trying to close it, a bunch of moron partisan shitbags are doing all in their power to A) poison the American public on how this will bring more turrsts in, and B) goes against every step in attempt to solve this issue.

You're right - Obama lied. Mostly because he had some glimmer of hope that people would come to their senses instead of rushing party lines on EVERY decision in their life, instead of facing the cold reality that progress is alien to a group of status-quo backing dipshits.

I hope, tomorrow, he goes to McDonalds, so all these fat dickbag dumbshits will claim it to be a librul nest and stop doing there.

Look over there! LOOK OVER THERE! A THING!
Click to expand...

Haha, ok.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Now I remember why I had you on ignore. The more replies you make, the less you add to the conversation. It's like some weird conversational black hole. Thanks for reminding me.[/QUOTE]

1) You accusing someone else of not adding anything to a conversation is a galling amount of hypocrisy on your part.

2) I have no problem doing a bit of legwork on this subject, I just want you to at least pretend to have a position (i.e. Bush et. al. acted in good faith) and argue it rather than constantly move the goalposts like you well always do.

3) You are quite the little whiner.
 
To be fair, it's not just a bunch of "moron partisan shitbags" preventing him from closing GitMo - there's pretty much *no one* - virtually anywhere, willing to take these guys.

Here's the thing though - Obama shouldn't have said he was going to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. Now, he says he "knew it would be hard." - did he really think - as you put it - "people would come to their senses"? At best, he made a very, very poor judgment. At worst, he flat-out lied, making campaign promises he knew he couldn't realistically keep. (for what it's worth to you, I dropped a couple of e-mails the other day supporting Quinn's attempts to get GitMo detainees into Illinois: http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2009/11/24/opinion/editorial/doc4b0c98c1af715298431184.txt)

Anywhoo, depascal asked why should it matter if global warming being caused by man is a lie, if the global warming scare causes man to be more green. I simply answered his question.

(I thought about going with the religious idea of "Why should it matter if religion is a lie if it causes man to be kinder?", but I really didn't want to open that can of worms... ;))

In regards to the ice caps melting - I believe that data can be found. In fact, unless I read something completely wrong, the eastern Antarctic ice shelf is actually growing faster than the western shelf is shrinking.
 
So let me get this straight.

You get on my case because I can't prove Bush was lying. I can live with that, and even extend it by saying if it was based on faulty intelligence, then here we are, and everything they said was in "good faith."

You then turn around and call Obama a liar because he makes a claim he's not backing up (by a date we haven't even reached yet, since it's still in the future, but I'll concede it looks grim), while not extending the same politeness you practically insist I must demonstrate in thinking that Bushco operated in good faith. So you want a favor done for your boys, but not for the librul president, because you know if he succeeds in closing down something the Repubs fucked up on to begin with, he'll look like....gee, I dunno.

Wake me up when this kindergarten double standard bullshit is put to rest.
 
Perhaps I'm wrong - and I'll admit it's possible - but my problem with Obama and the closing of GitMo was the fact that he made such a big thing out of his promise to do it - when, even know, he admits it was a lofty goal.

He didn't say "I'll do my best..." He didn't say "I'll try..." He said "we are going to get it done." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/11/national/main4713038.shtml). Don't make promises you can't keep.

And, if Obama didn't think he was up to the challenge of cleaning up the Republican's 8-year clusterfuck-in-the-White House, he should have stepped his scrawny little ass aside and let someone else do it. I swear, six years from now, the Obama administration will still be whining about how everything is Bush's fault.

And, in regards to the idea that the partisan Congressmen/women voting on party lines screwing Obama over... I'm pretty sure if they were simply voting on party lines, Obama could have virtually anything he wanted, since his party controls both halves of Congress.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] I swear, six years from now, the Obama administration will still be whining about how everything is Bush's fault.
[/QUOTE]

Hey, that would put the total at 14 years.
 
The issue with the faulty intelligence argument is that all the other countries on earth had the same intelligence Bush did. Saddam was doing a really good job lying about the nukes he claimed to have, and everyone believed him. If the worldwide intelligence community was unable to separate the facts from the bullshit, then what chance did George Bush and the people pulling his string have? Sure, Bush is to blame of going to war based on faulty pretenses, but so is every member of congress, and just about all the other major military powers on Earth as well, because they believed it too.
 
[quote name='spmahn']The issue with the faulty intelligence argument is that all the other countries on earth had the same intelligence Bush did. Saddam was doing a really good job lying about the nukes he claimed to have, and everyone believed him. If the worldwide intelligence community was unable to separate the facts from the bullshit, then what chance did George Bush and the people pulling his string have? Sure, Bush is to blame of going to war based on faulty pretenses, but so is every member of congress, and just about all the other major military powers on Earth as well, because they believed it too.[/QUOTE]

And, for no reason other than to toot his horn, Ron Paul voted against military action in Iraq (http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote_2.htm). Yay!
 
[quote name='spmahn']The issue with the faulty intelligence argument is that all the other countries on earth had the same intelligence Bush did. Saddam was doing a really good job lying about the nukes he claimed to have, and everyone believed him. If the worldwide intelligence community was unable to separate the facts from the bullshit, then what chance did George Bush and the people pulling his string have? Sure, Bush is to blame of going to war based on faulty pretenses, but so is every member of congress, and just about all the other major military powers on Earth as well, because they believed it too.[/QUOTE]

One can only hope that the concerted effort at spinning this alternate reality fails.
 
[quote name='Strell']So...I guess once this broke out, the polar ice caps stopped melting, right?[/QUOTE]

The polar ice caps aren't melting. The Arctic has had a 30-year declining trend in sea ice, while the Antarctic has had the opposite (an increase). In 2007, when the Arctic hit a low for the modern records (we only have accurate data since 1979), the Antarctic hit a high. Since 2007, sea ice has increased in the Arctic.

current.anom.jpg
current.anom.south.jpg


The reality is we only have 30 years of accurate records in any case. Since natural trends for this sort of thing tend to have influences spanning more (in some cases much more) than 30 years, it's difficult to draw conclusions based on so little data. However, we do know from anthropology that a few sites in Greenland have recently become accessible due to the declining trend in the Arctic -- sites of Viking settlements that were later covered by ice. This seems to be evidence that it was at least this warm back when said settlements were made.
 
[quote name='speedracer']The headline of this thread was much better than the other one. A+[/QUOTE]

It would've had more oomph if he used the term 'global warming' instead of the Bushized version, 'climate change'.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Hilarious picture from the front page of rense.com:

gorearrest_dees.jpg


EDIT: Here is another dubious thing: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520[/QUOTE]

Full disclosure regarding the link at the bottom, the Larouche PAC is the same PAC with those Obama Hitler moustache signs. So, take it for what its worth.
 
Well wtf did they expect him to do, shout back at them? Of course the guy left, any high profile person like Gore probably would have.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Full disclosure regarding the link at the bottom, the Larouche PAC is the same PAC with those Obama Hitler moustache signs. So, take it for what its worth.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but it wasn't them who confronted Al Gore.
 
But for the Obama Hitler reason, I'm not going to believe anything they say.
Similar to how nobody trusts ACORN with anything anymore after that whole hidden cam thing.

Nevertheless, I FIRMLY believe that if Al Gore (aka the guy who tried to steal the election from Bush) was not the biggest name associated with Global Warming, it would not be as polarizing as it is. If some guy like G. Gordon Liddy was the most famous guy associated with it Republicans would be onboard, and Liberals would be calling it bullshit.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Nevertheless, I FIRMLY believe that if Al Gore (aka the guy who tried to steal the election from Bush) was not the biggest name associated with Global Warming, it would not be as polarizing as it is. If some guy like G. Gordon Liddy was the most famous guy associated with it Republicans would be onboard, and Liberals would be calling it bullshit.[/QUOTE]

Quite possibly true, but it doesn't seem like an issue Republicans would be on board with, due to its association with (1) organizations like the U.N., and (2) environmentalism (which many Republicans see as having been hijacked by those with leftist social agendas, and I happen to agree with them at least as far as some "green" groups). Of course, it's easy enough to say Democrats would have supported the Iraq war a lot longer were it a Democratic president prosecuting it, for example.

Yet this is the political system we have chosen: two corrupt parties who employ career politicians whose only goal in life is to be reelected, while consolidating power. Thus, if both parties feel that when they are in the majority a certain policy will lead to them staying in power longer, they may well pursue the exact same things. Which then leads to discussion of our current economic crisis and the guilt of our inept and power-hungry political parties.
 
It's revolution time, baby.

First, we need to get rid of the pimps, pushers, and prostitutes. Then we can start all over again clean.....
 
[quote name='depascal22']It's revolution time, baby.

First, we need to get rid of the pimps, pushers, and prostitutes. Then we can start all over again clean.....[/QUOTE]

I agree with that one. But we'd have to completely delete every single person in Washington. EVERY SINGLE ONE. That's how bad it is.

Oh and it would help if we would stop electing ivy league puppets that are pushed into our faces by the corrupt media.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Ha, ha, ha. We have top men, TOP MEN, working on this...
And this isn't even including the damning emails from Tom Osborne to Mike Mann at the coveted Climate "research" institute. Unfortunately, it's too late. The fanatical left have already dug themselves in and are ready for any heretical attack on their religion. They already have the US administration and public opinion on their side of the paradigm so the Herculean task of truth will almost certainly fail in the shadow of Climate Change political momentum.

The lie that is Global Warmi- , ... I mean "Climate Change" will never die. Too many research grants depend on it.[/QUOTE]

I think it's humorous how upset the ignorant people get about climate change.

Seriously, if it bothers you that much then find an army of reputable scientists that you trust to prove your point. The fact that the only people who oppose the theory of climate change are discredited, have no-name degrees, or are as ignorant as you are should tell you something.
 
If you are a scientist today, it's career suicide (and grant suicide) to disagree or question with the global warming/climate change theories. The data you have is irrelevant, because you'll be smeared and discredited before anyone looks at it.

There very much is an Academic inquisition today, and not just with Climate Change.

If that is the way you like your scientific establishment, then you deserve what's coming.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you are a scientist today, it's career suicide (and grant suicide) to disagree or question with the global warming/climate change theories. The data you have is irrelevant, because you'll be smeared and discredited before anyone looks at it.

There very much is an Academic inquisition today, and not just with Climate Change.

If that is the way you like your scientific establishment, then you deserve what's coming.[/QUOTE]

Career suicide? Not really. Of course the studies would be the same as the ones that have evidence for climate change/global warming/whatever (so the grants would depend on what the study is, since you don't know the results until you've done it, but I guess maybe it wouldn't be the best idea to try to get a grant with the hypothesis that there will be negative results, I dunno), but the only thing that would stop a tenured professor at a university from trying to publish a paper that got negative results is the fear that they'd lose respect. If you're just starting out you might not want to put too much into trying to publish it since it might not be as likely to get published (and that's all that really matters at that point), but results are results. The study would be the same.

I guess other than that, it might be hard to get a grant for a climate study if you're very outspoken about your belief that there is no climate change/global warming? It would depend on your prior reputation at that point, so you would have had to already done studies with those results repeatedly and/or just spoken out against it a lot before trying to get funding.

But anyway, professors/researchers getting fired for not "believing" is probably on par with the biologists getting fired left and right for not "believing" in evolution like the creationists say. Rarely, if ever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is really not that long or difficult a read perd.

Even you should be able to handle it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']When discussing a topic, most people actually post their own thoughts on the topic, not links to articles.[/QUOTE]

In the time you spent trolling you could have just read the damn thing and maybe had something worthwhile to post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top