PDA

View Full Version : The "Climate Gate" conspiracy theory: Game Over



Cypress
04-18-2010, 07:52 AM
As predicted long ago by people with a rudimentary understanding of science, the “Climate Gate Conspiracy” finally merits is rightful place….aka, in the JPP.com Conspiracy Thread files.

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/images/1/12/Office.jpg

A lot could be said here; the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated (*see links below); two-time Bush voters, Tea Bag partiers, and Fox News fans have become inextricably ensconsed in an self-imposed alternate universe – an echo chamber free of facts and built on the foundations of half-truths, lies, and dubious “factoids” as published on Matt Drudge and the Sarah Palin facebook page; and that the lines of communication and consensus agreement between the real universe where normal people live and the universe of the rightwing echo chamber have been permanently severed.

In some of the more intellectual corners of the interwebs (which I typically avoid, preferring to troll internet porn – just kidding) a raging debate has been occurring on whether conservatives have reached “epistemic closure”; i.e., some fancy-pants philosophical psychobabble which I will defer to Bruce Bartlett to explain:


A Data Point on "Epistemic Closure"

Bruce Bartlett
Former Reagan Administration Undersecretary of the Treasury

There has been a bit of a debate going on in the blogosphere the last few days on whether conservatives have achieved "epistemic closure." (Links and commentary here.) I won't get into the deep philosophical meaning the term. What it seems to mean in terms of the current discussion is that conservatives live in a cocoon or echo chamber in which they only read conservative magazines like National Review and the Weekly Standard, only listen to conservative talk radio, only watch Fox News and only visit conservative web sites. It's a closed loop in which any opinions or facts that conflict with the conservative worldview are either avoided, ignored or automatically dismissed on the grounds that they must be liberal or come from liberals.

I believe this view of how conservatives think is correct and want to pass along the moment when I first realized it in 2004….(continued)……….

http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1660/data-point-epistemic-closure

If you really want to see conservative “epistemic closure” in action, check out Lord Monckton – a major celebrity of the righting Climate Denialist jihad. The dude is now claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Hilarious!

Yes, fellow denizens of the interwebs: a major star of the climate denier circuit not only clings with a death grip to a ridiculous and fantastical conspiracy theory of a global network of lying climate scientists; but also thinks the President of the United States is a fifth columnist who was secretly born in Kenya.

There you have it, folks. Conservative “epistemic closure” indeed, Mr. Bartlett…..well played, sir.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/lord_monckton_questioning_the.html




*”Climate Gate” Inquires:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/



"We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it.”

--Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to
examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit

DamnYankee
04-18-2010, 08:47 AM
...the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated .... You sound like Al Gore: 'the debate is over'. :cof1:

cancel2 2022
04-18-2010, 05:32 PM
As predicted long ago by people with a rudimentary understanding of science, the “Climate Gate Conspiracy” finally merits is rightful place….aka, in the JPP.com Conspiracy Thread files.

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/images/1/12/Office.jpg

A lot could be said here; the Climate scientists that were under “suspicion” have been thoroughly and completely exonerated (*see links below); two-time Bush voters, Tea Bag partiers, and Fox News fans have become inextricably ensconsed in an self-imposed alternate universe – an echo chamber free of facts and built on the foundations of half-truths, lies, and dubious “factoids” as published on Matt Drudge and the Sarah Palin facebook page; and that the lines of communication and consensus agreement between the real universe where normal people live and the universe of the rightwing echo chamber have been permanently severed.

In some of the more intellectual corners of the interwebs (which I typically avoid, preferring to troll internet porn – just kidding) a raging debate has been occurring on whether conservatives have reached “epistemic closure”; i.e., some fancy-pants philosophical psychobabble which I will defer to Bruce Bartlett to explain:



If you really want to see conservative “epistemic closure” in action, check out Lord Monckton – a major celebrity of the righting Climate Denialist jihad. The dude is now claiming that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Hilarious!

Yes, fellow denizens of the interwebs: a major star of the climate denier circuit not only clings with a death grip to a ridiculous and fantastical conspiracy theory of a global network of lying climate scientists; but also thinks the President of the United States is a fifth columnist who was secretly born in Kenya.

There you have it, folks. Conservative “epistemic closure” indeed, Mr. Bartlett…..well played, sir.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/lord_monckton_questioning_the.html




*”Climate Gate” Inquires:

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/387.pdf
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/some-climategate-conclusions/
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

You need to read this from Climate Audit.

http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/18/laundering-oxburghs-interview/

Cancel 2016.2
04-19-2010, 10:50 AM
As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive.

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science.

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

Cancel 2016.2
04-19-2010, 10:57 AM
Tell us Cypress...

Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain that to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

Hermes Thoth
04-22-2010, 06:36 AM
And we have just seen in real time how the population bifurcates.

We see that the entire statist military industrial complex of all nations are just going to keep going along with the plot to marketize the very right to use energy, with all the manipulative bubble and bust making to do their social engineering.

And we who lived through it now and can be honest see it's all based on bad data, but only a few us will even have the balls to discuss the truth 30 years from now, as we take belabored breaths from our state controlled oxygen tubes.

tinfoil
04-22-2010, 12:34 PM
It's hard to believe cypress can't prove all our points wrong with links to scientifc studies.
The links at climate audit are all backed up with links to data, and the original study.

Climate audit performs the needed statistical analysis that the good scientists have called for--AND he does it for free. Steve is a hero to mankind, and I'm not kidding when I say that. I believe he should get an award of some sort some day. He uncovered the fraud though careful examination.

Cypress
04-22-2010, 01:53 PM
Here we have two opposing sets of views. One claims climate change science is a fraud, perpetrated by lying liberal scientists….the other side doesn’t.

On the one hand, the Climate Denialist Jihad:


Tinfoil, Asshatzombie, Superfreak, Dixie, Damocles, Meme, Bravo, et al.
Status: Anonymous and Obscure Message Board Posters
Scientific Qualifications: None


On the other hand, the Nation’s most Brilliant Scientific Minds:


Massachusets Institute of Technology, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, et al.:
Status: Scientific experts qualified to evaluate climate science.
Scientific Qualifications: Impeccable and unimpeachable.


The climate denialist Jihadists provide links to rightwing blogs, to British tabloids, or they don’t provide links at all and bray like donkeys and demand answers to “questions” that undoubtedly they did not come up with on their own… their “questions” are no doubt paraphrased from something they read on a partisan rightwing site.


In contrast, The Worlds most Brilliant Scientific Minds make these conclusions:


How do we know that the CO2 increase is caused by human activities?

The Massachusets Institute of Technology
Joint Program on Climate Change

Industry data provides detailed figures of fossil fuels used in various sectors. This data can be used to calculate the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by combustion of the fuels. The emissions are more than sufficient to explain the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 Careful analysis of the atmospheric CO2 data collected by Scripps and other organizations shows that CO2 is increasing at a rate that is about 44% slower than would be expected if all the CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels stayed in the air. The real puzzle is to explain where the missing 44% of the emissions have gone. The answer is that this "missing" CO2 is absorbed by both the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere. On average over the last 50 years the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere have continued to "mop up" this amount of CO2. Whether they will continue to do this as atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase is a critical question and the subject of intense international research.

Other evidence for a human cause: 1) There are no known natural sources of CO2 sufficient to account for the recent increase. 2) There are no known sinks of CO2 sufficient to have absorbed all the CO2 from fossil-fuel burning. 3) For more than 10,000 years prior to the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were essentially constant, which shows that the recent increase is not natural. 4) The increase in CO2 has been accompanied by a decrease in O2 and by changes in the ratios of the isotopes of carbon in the CO2. The O2 and isotopes changes indicate that the CO2 increase was derived from the oxidation of old organic matter – consistent with burning fossil fuel. 5) The pattern of CO2 increase since 1958 has closely mirrored that of fossil-fuel burning.

Much of the relatively small climate variability over the last 1,000 years, but before industrialisation, can be explained by changes in solar output and occasional cooling due to major volcanic eruptions. Since industrialisation, CO2 has increased significantly. We now know that man-made CO2 is the likely cause of most of the warming over the last 50 years.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/topten.html


The climate denialist Jihadists cling like a drowning man to a piece of flotsam, and continue to blather that “Climate Gate” was perpetrated by lying liberal scientists bent on committing scientific fraud and deception of the public.

In contrast, qualified professional investigators came to the exact opposite conclusion as our hilarious band of Sherlock holmes climate denial dectectives:



“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it,”

-The Independent Panel Charged with Investigating the CRU – April 2010.



Even if the data that CRU used were not publicly available—which they mostly are—or the methods not published—which they have been—its published results would still be credible: the results from CRU agree with those drawn from other international data sets; in other words, the analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified.

We therefore conclude that there is independent verification, through the use of other methodologies and other sources of data, of the results and conclusions of the Climate

-British House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee



P.S. LOL at "Climate Audit". A blog run by a dude with no qualifications, expertise, or his own legitimate research in climate.




"Climate Gate!"
http://www.xfilesfanclub.com/userImages/productImages/IW2B_Mousepad_TRXF1004_lg.jpghttp://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/usa/Images/patterson-bigfoot.jpg

Hermes Thoth
04-22-2010, 02:52 PM
Cypress is appealling to the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's the main fallacy used by the estalishment in their "expertization" of all valid discourse.

Cypress. Fake data is fake data, no matter how many fascist nazi scientists they pay off to lie about it.

Cancel 2016.2
04-22-2010, 03:48 PM
As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones (yes, this is one of those unimpeachable experts the idiot Cypress keeps talking about)

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive. (yes, this too was from Jones)

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science. (yes... Cypress continues to ignore this)

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

8) Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

9) Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain these to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO RESPOND CYPRESS? OH THAT'S RIGHT... BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

Damocles
04-22-2010, 04:06 PM
Channeling Cypress:

Scientists who are paid to produce evidence of Global Warming have told me that they have done nothing wrong! They are unimpeachable! Their Data are right, because they said so!

Now, I'll proceed to ignore the fact that the data cannot be checked by anybody at all, because they were never stored, and start into the ad homs. It is always better to be on the attack than the defense.

/Channel...

Cypress
04-22-2010, 08:46 PM
As predicted before... fear mongering flat earth morons will continue to cling to the belief that they weren't 'lied' to by their beloved masters. Cypress continues to drive home the point of how much of a brain dead lemming he truly is... he continues posting these idiotic 'we did no wrong' pieces and continues to fail to address any of the following.....

1) No statistically significant warming in the past 15 years - phil jones (yes, this is one of those unimpeachable experts the idiot Cypress keeps talking about)

2) No evidence to support that we are warmer today than during the medieval period. The data that does exist supports the contrary... though not enough data for the globe to be conclusive. (yes, this too was from Jones)

3) Again... the data being 'lost' or deleted because it was 'too hard to store' is a sign of bad science. (yes... Cypress continues to ignore this)

4) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore all of the data and instead cling to his 'u guyz should stop reading right wing blogs' line of bullshit.

5) Again.... when the 'reports' as to what occurred are done by the very organizations/groups that have a vested interest in their global warming fear mongering, I would say only a completely brain dead moron would believe the very people who lied to us in the first place.

6) Again... Cypress will continue to ignore the benefit these governments, government agencies and groups funded by the BILLIONS of dollars have by being the global warming fear mongering that they are. The governments gain more control over lemmings like Cypress, the Government agencies get more control and the groups like East Anglia get billions to continue the myth of AGW.

7) Again, brain dead flat earth fear mongers like Cypress will ignore the facts. Instead he will champion the Fox's report of the Fox's activities in the hen house and proclaim that 'The FOX IS INNOCENT!!!'

8) Why did the so called 'scientists' and your beloved 'government agencies' shut down so many weather stations throughout the world?

9) Why did the stations shut down just happen to be disproportionately furthest from the equator and/or higher altitudes?

Explain these to us Cypress, since you have a 'rudimentary' understanding of science (which must of course translate to.... 'I repeat what my masters tell me to say')

WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO REFUSE TO RESPOND CYPRESS? OH THAT'S RIGHT... BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.


Here’s the problem. You were wrong about your climate gate conspiracy theory. And nothing you post about this topic can be trusted to be credible or accurate without a link to a credible scientific source. You, Dixie, Asshatzombie, and Tinfoil spent months yucking it up that CRU lied, manipulated and committed scientific fraud. Every credible professional investigation came to the exact opposite conclusion that you and Dixie did. .

So, just because you yell out a bunch of questions, please don’t expect me to accept the premise of your questions, unless you link me to the credible and recognized scientific source you got the information from. Just yelling out questions, without linking me up to doesn’t compel me to accept them as accurate, or to waste my time answering them. I nearly always provide links to reputable sources, since I’m not a climate scientist.

To put it simply, I know you didn’t come up with those questions yourself. I’m sure you transcribed them or paraphrased them from rightwing blogs or british tabloids. And I don't accept questions from rightwing blogs as worthy of my time. So link me up to your source that cites your alleged problems and questions as it relates to debunking the climate science that NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences has deemed to be reputable.





PS As for the Phil Jones stuff, I suggest you read the actual BBC interview he did. Because I’m pretty sure the stuff you are writing about Jones is from the UK Telegraph or from a rightwing blog.

http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/5448/lochnq.jpg

Cancel 2016.2
04-22-2010, 09:38 PM
Here’s the problem. You were wrong about your climate gate conspiracy theory. And nothing you post about this topic can be trusted to be credible or accurate without a link to a credible scientific source. You, Dixie, Asshatzombie, and Tinfoil spent months yucking it up that CRU lied, manipulated and committed scientific fraud. Every credible professional investigation came to the exact opposite conclusion that you and Dixie did.

Funny how you continue to say I was 'wrong', yet you cannot come up with one single fucking answer to any of those questions. You continue to duck answering them, because you can't. Your masters haven't provided you with anything and thus you are lost.

"every credible professional investigation"???? Seriously... drink some more koolaid. Again... two investigations by the foxes about the foxes activities are hardly credible.


So, just because you yell out a bunch of questions, please don’t expect me to accept the premise of your questions, unless you link me to the credible and recognized scientific source you got the information from. Just yelling out questions, without linking me up to doesn’t compel me to accept them as accurate, or to waste my time answering them. I nearly always provide links to reputable sources, since I’m not a climate scientist.

Translation: "you are right... I can't answer any of these questions.[/quote]


To put it simply, I know you didn’t come up with those questions yourself. I’m sure you transcribed them or paraphrased them from rightwing blogs or british tabloids. And I don't accept questions from rightwing blogs as worthy of my time. So link me up to your source that cites your alleged problems and questions as it relates to debunking the climate science that NASA and the US National Academy of Sciences has deemed to be reputable.

Actually, once again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. I did indeed come up with all of those questions. Now, do try to answer them.



PS As for the Phil Jones stuff, I suggest you read the actual BBC interview he did. Because I’m pretty sure the stuff you are writing about Jones is from the UK Telegraph or from a rightwing blog.



Once again, I suggest you actually read the BBC interview he did. Because the quotes from Jones are from the BBC... no matter who else quoted the same interview.

We have pointed this out to you on numerous other threads and you continue to ignore it. Because it refutes your idiocy.

USFREEDOM911
04-23-2010, 12:00 AM
Channeling Cypress:

Scientists who are paid to produce evidence of Global Warming have told me that they have done nothing wrong! They are unimpeachable! Their Data are right, because they said so!

Now, I'll proceed to ignore the fact that the data cannot be checked by anybody at all, because they were never stored, and start into the ad homs. It is always better to be on the attack than the defense.

/Channel...


I heard a Radio report today that said the Iceland volcano has put more Co2 into the atmosphere in one week, then all of humanity has in the past year.

tinfoil
04-23-2010, 12:36 AM
Funny how you continue to say I was 'wrong', yet you cannot come up with one single fucking answer to any of those questions. You continue to duck answering them, because you can't. Your masters haven't provided you with anything and thus you are lost.

"every credible professional investigation"???? Seriously... drink some more koolaid. Again... two investigations by the foxes about the foxes activities are hardly credible.



Translation: "you are right... I can't answer any of these questions.



Actually, once again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. I did indeed come up with all of those questions. Now, do try to answer them.




Once again, I suggest you actually read the BBC interview he did. Because the quotes from Jones are from the BBC... no matter who else quoted the same interview.

We have pointed this out to you on numerous other threads and you continue to ignore it. Because it refutes your idiocy.[/QUOTE]

LOL

Cypress is amusing me. What a total believer. Seriously, what kind of moron can't see the conflict of interest. Thankfully, the idiots like cypress are no longer growing in number. the climate cult has at least peaked, like the 1998 el nino. LOL

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 08:13 AM
Just for Cypress, since apparently he can't remember people posting the BBC interview with Phil Jones before.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

The following 'quotes' are the questions asked of Jones. The responses are HIS responses, not mine.... and remember... Jones and the CRU are unimpeachable. Note, I am not going to post every question in the article, so there IS more at the link.


A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes


B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.


C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.



N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

DamnYankee
04-23-2010, 08:27 AM
I heard a Radio report today that said the Iceland volcano has put more Co2 into the atmosphere in one week, then all of humanity has in the past year. What a fucking ash hole. :(

Cypress
04-23-2010, 08:39 AM
Yes, I'm glad you are so vigilant at reading all my posts and committing them to memory.

With regard to the BBC interview, I addressed this at length in another post. Clearly, you must have committed that post to memory, and my answers, and I refer you back to that post. I'm not going to post the same answers twice.

You still didn't give me a link to a credible scientific source for the rest of your assertions. Just yelling out questions, while providing no scientific link is not a reason for me to accept the premise of your questions. You were wrong on Iraq, and you were wrong on Climate Gate. You have a history of being dead wrong. Your assertions on these topics can't be trusted, unless you provide independent verification from reputable sources.

Now with regard to the topic of my thread, do you admit you were wrong about Climate Gate? That there was no fraud, conspiracy, or attempt to mislead the public?

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 09:10 AM
Yes, I'm glad you are so vigilant at reading all my posts and committing them to memory.

With regard to the BBC interview, I addressed this at length in another post. Clearly, you must have committed that post to memory, and my answers, and I refer you back to that post. I'm not going to post the same answers twice.

You still didn't give me a link to a credible scientific source for the rest of your assertions. Just yelling out questions, while providing no scientific link is not a reason for me to accept the premise of your questions. You were wrong on Iraq, and you were wrong on Climate Gate. You have a history of being dead wrong. Your assertions on these topics can't be trusted, unless you provide independent verification from reputable sources.

Now with regard to the topic of my thread, do you admit you were wrong about Climate Gate? That there was no fraud, conspiracy, or attempt to mislead the public?

You are so unbelievably full of shit. So now that you have your link provided to you on what Jones said, your answer is.... 'I am not going to answer because I think I answered these before, even though I don't remember you ever posting the BBC link before'???

As to the fraud... yes, I admit you are an idiot. The very fact that you refuse to address Jones comments about the FACT that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years, shows that you are a complete hack.

No matter what source I provide, you will simply proclaim it not 'suitable'. I give you one of the LEAD SCIENTISTS on the issue and you ignore him. Suddenly Jones is not good enough for you?

I show you that there are three other periods that saw similar warming trends and yet you still want us to believe that this is something new and man made?

You proclaim the debate closed and that anyone disagreeing must be a climate 'deniar'... yet one of the lead Scientists states just the opposite.

It is your credibility that is shot on the topic Cypress.

No... there is fraud... by the IPCC. Including data that was unsubstantiated and non-scientific in the report is fraudulent.

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 09:25 AM
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/10/historical-station-distribution/

Shows the number of stations... data taken directly from GHCN

Due note the number of stations in Canada in particular.... from 1985 to 2005.

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 11:54 AM
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=602042&highlight=Jones#post602042

Hmm... here is the last time I posted the BBC interview with Jones... and just like this time, Cypress 'answers' it with bullshit rather than addressing the comments of Jones. Imagine that.

Cypress
04-23-2010, 04:03 PM
Wow, eights after the Iraq War you still can admit you were mistaken to support it, and after two credible investigations into "climate gate" you still can't admit you were duped into believing a fantastical conspiracy theory.

you're totally irrational, man. But, no worries. Science doesn't depend on the message board opinions of Dixie and Superfreak.

Climate Audit? Hilarious, I knew you were getting your info from a rightwing blog, run by a guy who isn't even a qualified climate scientist who does his own research.

Dude, I can't even respond to "climate audit". But, thanks for the laugh.


As for "no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years", yeah, that's something else you picked up off rightwing blogs.

Because if you paid attention to the actual BBC interview, Dr. Jones explicitly said that it's hard to establish statistical significance at shorter temporal scales. Like ten or 15 years.

The last ten years have been the warmest on record. Given a longer period of time, as climatologists use, rather than starting with a cherry picked interval beginning in 1995 - a random starting point for which Dr. Jone's interviewer gave no reason for choosing.

You've been duped. Again. The following graph will explain it to you. Where you were duped should be easily understood with a simple graph.

No offence man, I can't waste my time with rightwing blog nonsense. Get back to me when you have links to reputable and internationally recognized science experts. Until then have fun with Climate Audit, redstate.org and pajamasmedia/blogspot.com!


http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7773/tempx.jpg


http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/7909/ufoid.jpg

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 04:30 PM
Wow, eights after the Iraq War you still can admit you were mistaken to support it, and after two credible investigations into "climate gate" you still can't admit you were duped into believing a fantastical conspiracy theory.

Now we all can see just how desperate you are to believe the idiocy you have been fed. So desperate are you that you attempt to bring the Iraq War into the discussion. It has NO relevance to this topic at all. Thanks for admitting you are still to chickenshit to actually address Jone's comments.


you're totally irrational, man. But, no worries. Science doesn't depend on the message board opinions of Dixie and Superfreak.

LMAO... I am irrational for asking you to provide your opinion on why one of the leading climate fear mongers has publicly stated that there has been NO significant warming in the past 15 years?

You asked for a credible link. I gave it to you. You suggested I 'read the BBC interview'. I posted the link to the interview and quoted directly both the questions and the complete answers. Yet no matter what I do, it will never be enough or 'credible' enough for you because you are a complete hack who is intent upon clinging desperately to the flat earth fear mongering tales of woe that idiots like Gore spoon fed other idiots like you.


Climate Audit? Hilarious, I knew you were getting your info from a rightwing blog, run by a guy who isn't even a qualified climate scientist who does his own research.

Once again you show your ignorance. Whether you like him or not, his DATA came from one of your precious government agencies that are unimpeachable (according to you). So instead of addressing the data, not McIntyres opinions or discussion, but the actual DATA... you instead pretend that it is simply a right wing blog.

Then you attack him for not being a qualified climate scientist who does his own research?

1) He obviously did his own research into the statistics... which he IS qualifed to do and found errors that your unimpeachable Goddard had published and subsequently had to correct. He has obviously done the research into the number of research stations being used.

2) I can't help but notice you also were a Gore worshipping twit at the time he released his propaganda piece an Inconvenient truth. Yet Gore is also not a scientist and he most certainly did not do his own research. He did blatantly lie.... but not a peep from you on his scientific creditials or his lack of his own research.

Dude, I can't even respond to "climate audit". But, thanks for the laugh.


As for "no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years", yeah, that's something else you picked up off rightwing blogs.

No dipshit. I pulled the question and the complete answer from the BBC interview. You simply want to pretend it is from some rightwing blog. Because that is your standard answer anytime someone poses a question you can't answer.


Because if you paid attention to the actual BBC interview, Dr. Jones explicitly said that it's hard to establish statistical significance at shorter temporal scales. Like ten or 15 years. [/quote

Again moron, I posted the actual interview. I read it and understood what he said. Not surprising that you attempt to cherry pick one portion of his comments and take it for gospel. Why don't you explain to us why it is that 15 years worth of data isn't enough for statistical analysis?

Bottom line, this is a cop out on Jones part. Statistical analysis isn't any harder for a 15 year period than it is for a 30 year period.

[quote]The last ten years have been the warmest on record. Given a longer period of time, as climatologists prefer to use, rather than starting with a cherry picked interval beginning in 1995 - a random starting point for which Dr. Jone's interviewer gave no reason for choosing.

Ah... now you go back to your previous idiocy from years past. Taking a look back at intervals of the past ten years is not cherry picking. Neither is a 15 year period.

No one is questioning that temperatures rose from 1975-1998. No one is questioning that we have had the warmest decade on record. But while it has been the warmest on record.... it HAS NOT CONTINUED TO GET WARMER. We have not seen any significant warming since 1998.




You've been duped. Again. The following graph will explain it to you. Where you were duped should be easily understood with a simple graph.

No offence man, I can't waste my time with rightwing blog nonsense. Get back to me when you have links to reputable and internationally recognized science experts. Until then have fun with Climate Audit, redstate.org and pajamasmedia/blogspot.com!



No offense taken Cypress. Everyone who reads this thread understands why you are running away from this issue. Everyone here understands that the data was presented to you as you asked.

First from one of your unimpeachable people... Jones... then data from a government agency. Yet you continue to pretend everything is simply from a rightwing blog. Because that is your pathetic excuse for everything your masters haven't explained to you.

You are a hack.

Have fun being a flat earth fear mongering brain dead lemming... because that is all you are and ever shall be.

Damocles
04-23-2010, 04:32 PM
I just want to know why the graph is reliable when Jones himself says the data are unreproduceable...

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 04:32 PM
Side note Cypress.... thanks for the graph. It also shows there has been no warming since 1998. I appreciate that you have finally accepted that FACT and are now quoting charts that prove it.

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 04:35 PM
I just want to know why the graph is reliable when Jones himself says the data is unreproduceable...

Because people like Jones told Cypress it is.... and we all know Jones is unimpeachable... well except for times when he says something Cypress doesn't like. Then Jones' words in a direct quote are nothing more than something we pull from right wing blog sites... like the BBC.

cancel2 2022
04-23-2010, 05:46 PM
Because people like Jones told Cypress it is.... and we all know Jones is unimpeachable... well except for times when he says something Cypress doesn't like. Then Jones' words in a direct quote are nothing more than something we pull from right wing blog sites... like the BBC.

Are you saying that the BBC is right wing? That's extraordinary because many people say that BBC is left wing?

Cancel 2016.2
04-23-2010, 07:24 PM
Are you saying that the BBC is right wing? That's extraordinary because many people say that BBC is left wing?

I was being sarcastic. Cypress claims anything that disputes his global warming fear mongering is a right wing blog. Since I posted the BBC interview with Jones stating the he doesn't believe the 'debate is over' AND he admits there is no significant global warming over the past 15 years.... well, since the BBC posted it, they are now a right wing site according to Cypress's standards.

tinfoil
04-23-2010, 08:26 PM
I love how Crypiss laughs at Climate Audit. Steve was an IPCC reviewer until he began uncovering their lies. And he's been proven correct! Proven!

The statistics are where the fraud lies and it took a statistician to uncover it.

cancel2 2022
04-24-2010, 07:17 AM
I was being sarcastic. Cypress claims anything that disputes his global warming fear mongering is a right wing blog. Since I posted the BBC interview with Jones stating the he doesn't believe the 'debate is over' AND he admits there is no significant global warming over the past 15 years.... well, since the BBC posted it, they are now a right wing site according to Cypress's standards.


OK, thanks.

kathaksung
05-10-2010, 12:56 PM
Alter climate is a skilled technique, only so many people don't know it. Here is a news briefing 13 years ago:

DoD News Briefing: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen

April 28, 1997

Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.



http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=674

Cypress
08-03-2022, 08:15 AM
We have come a long way in the last 20 years.

Hardly anyone now is even trying to deny that fossil fuel burning by humans is effecting the climate. And those few who do try to deny it are half hearted at best, or mentally ill at worst (see Into The Night)

archives
08-03-2022, 10:38 AM
“Their lying,” ever notice how anytime anyone or even anything shows the wingers are wrong, be it a person, organization, or source, even if fully documenting what is being presented, “their lying.”

All part of the “alternative” view, “fair and balance” bullshit, with that mentality out there, it is easy for the energy interests to present the false paradigm which the lemmings swallow eagerly

Hermes Thoth
08-03-2022, 03:34 PM
“Their lying,” ever notice how anytime anyone or even anything shows the wingers are wrong, be it a person, organization, or source, even if fully documenting what is being presented, “their lying.”

All part of the “alternative” view, “fair and balance” bullshit, with that mentality out there, it is easy for the energy interests to present the false paradigm which the lemmings swallow eagerly

environmental alarmism is to justify eugenics and genocide.

https://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/



UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.----Rosa Koire

REMEMBER: AGENDA 2030 IS AGENDA 21. THE AGENDA FOR THE 21ST CENTURY (AGENDA 21) IS A ONE HUNDRED YEAR PLAN. AGENDA 2030 IS A MILESTONE YEAR, OBVIOUSLY 30 YEARS IN. DON'T BE FOOLED INTO DISREGARDING UN AGENDA 21 AS 'OUTDATED' OR UPDATED BY AGENDA 2030. THIS IS A MANIPULATION DESIGNED TO BURY ALL OF THE OBJECTIONS AND ACTIVISM AGAINST AGENDA 21.

CLICK HERE TO READ OUR BLOG

Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from? Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts? Is that just a coincidence? That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what?

First, before I get going, I want to say that yes, I know it's a small world and it takes a village and we're all one planet etc. I also know that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that as cumbersome as that can be sometimes (Donald Rumsfeld said that the Chinese have it easy; they don't have to ask their people if they agree. And Bush Junior said that it would be great to have a dictator as long as he was the dictator), we have a three branch government and the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and self-determination. This is one of the reasons why people want to come to the US, right? We don't have Tiananmen Square here, generally speaking (yes, I remember Kent State--not the same, and yes, an outrage.) So I'm not against making certain issues a priority, such as mindful energy use, alternative energy sponsorship, recycling/reuse, and sensitivity to all living creatures.

But then you have UN Agenda 21. What is it? See our videos and radio shows at the bottom of this page, on our video page (or search YouTube for Rosa Koire) or
Buy BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire

CLICK TO PRINT OUT FLYER: WHY IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT UN AGENDA 21?

Considering its policies are woven into all the General Plans of the cities and counties, it's important for people to know where these policies are coming from. While many people support the United Nations for its 'peacemaking' efforts, hardly anyone knows that they have very specific land use policies that they would like to see implemented in every city, county, state and nation. The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism. By now, most Americans have heard of sustainable development but are largely unaware of Agenda 21.

In a nutshell, the plan calls for governments to take control of all land use and not leave any of the decision making in the hands of private property owners. It is assumed that people are not good stewards of their land and the government will do a better job if they are in control. Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body. Moreover, people should be rounded up off the land and packed into human settlements, or islands of human habitation, close to employment centers and transportation. Another program, called the Wildlands Project spells out how most of the land is to be set aside for non-humans.

U.N. Agenda 21 cites the affluence of Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. It calls for lowering the standard of living for Americans so that the people in poorer countries will have more, a redistribution of wealth. Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, Americans are cast in a very negative light and need to be taken down to a condition closer to average in the world. Only then, they say, will there be social justice which is a cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.

Agenda 21 policies date back to the 70's but it got its real start in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro when President Bush signed onto it. Click here to see a list of the countries that signed UN Agenda 21. President Clinton took office the following year and created the President's Council on Sustainable Development to implement it in the United States. Made up of federal agencies, corporations, and non-profit groups, the President's Council on Sustainable Development moved quickly to ensure that all federal agencies would change their policies to comply with UN Agenda 21. A non-governmental organization called the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21 worldwide. Remember: UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a global plan that is implemented locally. Over 600 cities in the U.S. are members; our town joined in 2007. The costs are paid by taxpayers.

It's time that people educate themselves and read the document and related commentary. After that, get a copy of your city or county's General Plan and read it. You will find all sorts of policies that are nearly identical to those in U.N. Agenda 21. Unfortunately, their policies have advanced largely unnoticed and we are now in the end game. People need to identify their elected officials who are promoting the U.N.'s policies and hold them accountable for their actions. Only when we've identified who the people are and what they are trying to do will we be able to evaluate whether or not we approve of the policies they are putting forward. Some people may think it's appropriate for agencies outside the United States to set our policies and some people will not. The question is, aren't Americans able to develop their own policies? Should we rely on an organization that consists of member nations that have different forms of governments, most of which do not value individual rights as much as we do? It's time to bring U.N. Agenda 21 out in the open where we can have these debates and then set our own policies in accordance with our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
***

Ok, you say, interesting, but I don't see how that really affects me. Here are a few ways:

No matter where you live, I'll bet that there have been hundreds of condos built in the center of your town recently. Over the last ten years there has been a 'planning revolution' across the US. Your commercial, industrial, and multi-residential land was rezoned to 'mixed use.' Nearly everything that got approvals for development was designed the same way: ground floor retail with two stories of residential above. Mixed use. Very hard to finance for construction, and very hard to manage since it has to have a high density of people in order to justify the retail. A lot of it is empty and most of the ground floor retail is empty too. High bankruptcy rate.

So what? Most of your towns provided funding and/or infrastructure development for these private projects. They used Redevelopment Agency funds. Your money. Specifically, your property taxes. Notice how there's very little money in your General Funds now, and most of that is going to pay Police and Fire? Your street lights are off, your parks are shaggy, your roads are pot-holed, your hospitals are closing. The money that should be used for these things is diverted into the Redevelopment Agency. It's the only agency in government that can float a bond without a vote of the people. And they did that, and now you're paying off those bonds for the next 45 years with your property taxes. Did you know that? And by the way, even if Redevelopment is ended, as in California, they still have to pay off existing debt--for 30 to 45 years.

So, what does this have to do with Agenda 21?

Redevelopment is a tool used to further the Agenda 21 vision of remaking America's cities. With redevelopment, cities have the right to take property by eminent domain---against the will of the property owner, and give it or sell it to a private developer. By declaring an area of town 'blighted' (and in some cities over 90% of the city area has been declared blighted) the property taxes in that area can be diverted away from the General Fund. This constriction of available funds is impoverishing the cities, forcing them to offer less and less services, and reducing your standard of living. They'll be telling you that it's better, however, since they've put in nice street lights and colored paving. The money gets redirected into the Redevelopment Agency and handed out to favored developers building low income housing and mixed use. Smart Growth. Cities have had thousands of condos built in the redevelopment areas and are telling you that you are terrible for wanting your own yard, for wanting privacy, for not wanting to be dictated to by a Condo Homeowner's Association Board, for being anti-social, for not going along to get along, for not moving into a cramped apartment downtown where they can use your property taxes for paying off that huge bond debt. But it's not working, and you don't want to move in there. So they have to make you. Read on.

Human habitation, as it is referred to now, is restricted to lands within the Urban Growth Boundaries of the city. Only certain building designs are permitted. Rural property is more and more restricted in what uses can be on it. Although counties say that they support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, farmer's markets, etc, in fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, huge fees, fines) that farmers are losing their lands altogether. County roads are not being paved. The push is for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, come into the cities. To get out of the suburbs and into the cities. Out of their private homes and into condos. Out of their private cars and onto their bikes.

Bikes. What does that have to do with it? I like to ride my bike and so do you. So what? Bicycle advocacy groups are very powerful now. Advocacy. A fancy word for lobbying, influencing, and maybe strong-arming the public and politicians. What's the conection with bike groups? National groups such as Complete Streets, Thunderhead Alliance, and others, have training programs teaching their members how to pressure for redevelopment, and training candidates for office. It's not just about bike lanes, it's about remaking cities and rural areas to the 'sustainable model'. High density urban development without parking for cars is the goal. This means that whole towns need to be demolished and rebuilt in the image of sustainable development. Bike groups are being used as the 'shock troops' for this plan.

What plan? We're losing our homes since this recession/depression began, and many of us could never afford those homes to begin with. We got cheap money, used whatever we had to squeak into those homes, and now some of us lost them. We were lured, indebted, and sunk. Whole neighborhoods are empty in some places. Some are being bulldozed. Cities cannot afford to extend services outside of their core areas. Slowly, people will not be able to afford single family homes. Will not be able to afford private cars. Will be more dependent. More restricted. More easily watched and monitored.

This plan is a whole life plan. It involves the educational system, the energy market, the transportation system, the governmental system, the health care system, food production, and more. The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways is by using the Delphi Technique to 'manufacture consensus.' Another is to infiltrate community groups or actually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked 'leaders'. Another is to groom and train future candidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and train children. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further the agenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another is to convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energy consumption goals to pre-1985 levels. Another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lower standards of living and drain local resources.

All of this sounds unbelievable until you have had direct experience with it. You probably have, but unless you resisted it you won't know it's happening. That's why we'd like you to read our blog 'The Way We See It' (click here). Go to the section in the blog (look on the right side under Categories) called Our Story. You'll get a look at how two unsuspecting people fell into a snake pit and survived to tell about it.

RADIO
There are many radio shows on the web---just search Rosa's name. Here are some from the past. You'll find more recent interviews and videos by putting Rosa's name in your search browser. Yes, some have been removed from the web because the truth is considered subversive and dangerous.

Rosa with Elena, The View From Montana Sept 13, 2012 click here

Rosa with Rumor Mill News' Melinda Pillsbury-Foster Feb 21, 2012 click


Rosa with KSFO's BARBARA SIMPSON JANUARY 15, 2012 (problem with this link, we're working on it)

Rosa with Marti Oakley on TS Radio January 11, 2012 Great show! click here

ROSA KOIRE WITH MAGGIE RODDIN ON THE UNSOLICITED OPINION, SEPT 23, 2011 CLICK HERE

ROSA KOIRE DEBATES LYNN PLAMBECK 'IS AGENDA 21 REAL?', RADIO, SEPT 1, 2011 CLICK HERE

Rosa Koire, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, FreeMeNowRadio CLICK HERE

Hermes Thoth
08-03-2022, 03:36 PM
The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. One of the ways is by using the Delphi Technique to 'manufacture consensus.' Another is to infiltrate community groups or actually start neighborhood associations with hand-picked 'leaders'. Another is to groom and train future candidates for local offices. Another is to sponsor non-governmental groups that go into schools and train children. Another is to offer federal and private grants and funding for city programs that further the agenda. Another is to educate a new generation of land use planners to require New Urbanism. Another is to convert factories to other uses, introduce energy measures that penalize manufacturing, and set energy consumption goals to pre-1985 levels. Another is to allow unregulated immigration in order to lower standards of living and drain local resources.

gfm7175
08-04-2022, 09:40 AM
We have come a long way in the last 20 years. Hardly anyone now is even trying to deny that fossil fuel burning by humans is effecting the climate.
** affecting, not effecting.

Humans do not burn fossils for fuel. Do you mean carbon-based fuels?

Define "the climate". There is no "the climate" with regard to Earth. Climate, like weather, is a very localized term. Did you know that Wisconsin has a desert climate within it? I've been there before. It has sand, snakes, lizards, cacti, and other desert climate related critters and fauna. Most of Wisconsin is not a desert climate though.



And those few who do try to deny it are half hearted at best, or mentally ill at worst (see Into The Night)
Don't like people who don't share your Church of Global Warming beliefs, eh?

Walt
08-08-2022, 08:47 AM
Humans do not burn fossils for fuel. Do you mean carbon-based fuels?

Fossil fuels are fuels you need to dig up from another geological era. Most "carbon-based" fuels would be fossil fuels, with the obvious exception of wood, and the less obvious exception of peat. Wood is not dug up, it is cut down. Peat is dug up, but is not from another geological era.

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 09:17 AM
Fossil fuels are fuels you need to dig up from another geological era.
... such as??



Most "carbon-based" fuels would be fossil fuels,
We do not burn fossils for fuel, dumbass.



with the obvious exception of wood, and the less obvious exception of peat.
Wood and peat are not fossils, dumbass.



Wood is not dug up, it is cut down. Peat is dug up, but is not from another geological era.
Wood and peat are not fossils, dumbass.

ThatOwlWoman
08-08-2022, 09:26 AM
We have come a long way in the last 20 years.

Hardly anyone now is even trying to deny that fossil fuel burning by humans is effecting the climate. And those few who do try to deny it are half hearted at best, or mentally ill at worst (see Into The Night)

And Tommy.

ThatOwlWoman
08-08-2022, 09:33 AM
The plan is to restrict your choices, limit your funds, narrow your freedoms, and take away your voice. yaddy-blah-blah psycho paranoia

I wonder if those ppl in Kentucky who lost everything in the recent flooding feel "free"? Do you think all those hundreds of humans who have died during the ongoing heat wave in Europe have a voice? Will your funds be limited when your house goes up in smoke due to a wildfire and you have to pay out of pocket for what insurance doesn't cover? Are you afraid that if you choose to buy a gasoline-powered vehicle, you'll be scorned by others? What will happen to your "choices" when it's 105F outside and your area suffers a power black-out?

You climate change deniers sound more shrill and hysterical with each passing day.

Cypress
08-08-2022, 09:36 AM
And Tommy.

There is a contingent of MAGA who finally and belatedly admitted that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but they claim it won't really cause any serious problems.

Walt
08-08-2022, 09:37 AM
Wood and peat are not fossils, dumbass.

I said both were not fossil fuels. They are "carbon based" fuels, but not fossil fuels. Wood is not dug up. Peat is dug up, but not from another geological era. Uranium is not a "carbon based" fuel, and is dug up. It was not formed on earth, but rather in a star that no longer exists, so is not from another geological era.

GFM just seems stupid when he confuses fossil fuels with stone fossils.

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 10:47 AM
I said both were not fossil fuels. They are "carbon based" fuels, but not fossil fuels. Wood is not dug up. Peat is dug up, but not from another geological era. Uranium is not a "carbon based" fuel, and is dug up. It was not formed on earth, but rather in a star that no longer exists, so is not from another geological era.

GFM just seems stupid when he confuses fossil fuels with stone fossils.
Walt just seems stupid when he continues to claim that people burn fossils for fuel.

You have yet to clarify what you mean by the word "fossil fuels"...

Walt
08-08-2022, 01:30 PM
Walt just seems stupid when he continues to claim that people burn fossils for fuel.

You have yet to clarify what you mean by the word "fossil fuels"...

I have given you a full definition of fossil fuel, several times. It is not claiming they burn fossils... But actually, in a hyper technical sense they do. You do not seem to know what a fossil is.

Cypress
08-08-2022, 01:59 PM
** affecting, not effecting.

Humans do not burn fossils for fuel. Do you mean carbon-based fuels?

Define "the climate". There is no "the climate" with regard to Earth. Climate, like weather, is a very localized term. Did you know that Wisconsin has a desert climate within it? I've been there before. It has sand, snakes, lizards, cacti, and other desert climate related critters and fauna. Most of Wisconsin is not a desert climate though.


Don't like people who don't share your Church of Global Warming beliefs, eh?

I don't make the rules, I just follow them.

fossil fuel is a widely used term in industry, government, and news media referring to ancient plant and animal matter which has been thermally altered by geologic processes into hydrocarbons like petroleum, methane, coal.

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 02:04 PM
I have given you a full definition of fossil fuel, several times. It is not claiming they burn fossils... But actually, in a hyper technical sense they do. You do not seem to know what a fossil is.
Fossils are not being burned, moron... You have not defined what you mean by 'fossil fuel'.

archives
08-08-2022, 02:36 PM
Fossils are not being burned, moron... You have not defined what you mean by 'fossil fuel'.

Always a give away when the “pidgin” has to turn the exchange into one over semantics, “but you said ……..,” next we’ll get the Google glossary of fallacies

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 02:45 PM
Always a give away when the “pidgin” has to turn the exchange into one over semantics, “but you said ……..,” next we’ll get the Google glossary of fallacies
So you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion??

Thought so.

archives
08-08-2022, 02:49 PM
So you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion??

Thought so.

Why would I, anyone for that matter, you eagerly swallowed the false paradigm propagandized by the energy companies and now are echoing the same, seen it all, been there before, like playing a game of tic tac toe, pointless

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 02:53 PM
Why would I, anyone for that matter, you eagerly swallowed the false paradigm propagandized by the energy companies and now are echoing the same, seen it all, been there before, like playing a game of tic tac toe, pointless
What are you even talking about?

archives
08-08-2022, 03:09 PM
What are you even talking about?

Here we go with the semantics again, predictable, rather not play that game, again, here, I’ll just leave you with those who put a on the moon, a controllable rover and robot on Mars, think of the reality of man made climate change:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/

gfm7175
08-08-2022, 03:49 PM
Here we go with the semantics again, predictable, rather not play that game, again, here, I’ll just leave you with those who put a on the moon, a controllable rover and robot on Mars, think of the reality of man made climate change:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/global-warming-vs-climate-change/
NASA is not science. Learn how to answer a simple fucking question for a change.

What is this "false paradigm propagandized by the energy companies" that I have supposedly swallowed? I have no idea what you are talking about. You should be able to substantiate your claim, if it holds any meaning at all... It is quite obvious why you can't substantiate it...

ThatOwlWoman
08-08-2022, 05:42 PM
There is a contingent of MAGA who finally and belatedly admitted that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but they claim it won't really cause any serious problems.

Kentucky.

saltydancin
08-11-2022, 10:29 AM
There is a contingent of MAGA who finally and belatedly admitted that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but they claim it won't really cause any serious problems.

Probably why the source of the River Thames has dried up....& not a serious problem.

saltydancin
08-12-2022, 05:58 AM
There is a contingent of MAGA who finally and belatedly admitted that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming, but they claim it won't really cause any serious problems.

Sounds like a reincarnation of WW II Nuremberg Trials defendants while burning Europe & England with a blitzkreig as all of those Nazington Islamidiotocracy Christiananality pedophilia thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights - old glory presented by Eisenhower - old testament arsonists of Rehnquist Fourth Reich July Christian Nation.