CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding Hypocrisy

[Big Al]

Just because you didn't vote for the guy who won does not make a case for taxation without representation.

This has nothing to do with my choice of candidates for the latest election. This has to do with clear cut information that many people are neglecting to read for themselves- all because they think that what's happening in the world is being done in their best interests.

Have you by chance read any of the emails yourself? What about that last post I made? I would appreciate your opinion on the matter.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This has nothing to do with my choice of candidates for the latest election. This has to do with clear cut information that many people are neglecting to read for themselves- all because they think that what's happening in the world is being done in their best interests.

Have you by chance read any of the emails yourself? What about that last post I made? I would appreciate your opinion on the matter.

To be brutally honest, and to break it down in the simplest terms.
One side says, "Yeah it does" and the other says, "Uh-UHHH!"

The information is clear-cut on both sides... as in, they both look legit and truthful to some degree. You're not going to find a single argument in this debate that completely overshadows or discredits the other. Knowing this, were do we go now? Do we pander to the suggestions made by those who believe humans can affect the climate? Or do we pander to the other side that is saying, "Nothing to fear here. Just keep on doing what you're doing and don't even worry about the rest."

That's the real argument here whether you want to acknowledge it or not. But acting as if there's some kind of conspiracy or phony concern regarding the environment only panders to those who honestly don't give a damn about anyone or anything else around them but themselves.

 

[Big Al]

To be brutally honest, and to break it down in the simplest terms.
One side says, "Yeah it does" and the other says, "Uh-UHHH!"

The information is clear-cut on both sides... as in, they both look legit and truthful to some degree. You're not going to find a single argument in this debate that completely overshadows or discredits the other. Knowing this, were do we go now? Do we pander to the suggestions made by those who believe humans can affect the climate? Or do we pander to the other side that is saying, "Nothing to fear here. Just keep on doing what you're doing and don't even worry about the rest."

That's the real argument here whether you want to acknowledge it or not. But acting as if there's some kind of conspiracy or phony concern regarding the environment only panders to those who honestly don't give a damn about anyone or anything else around them but themselves.

Whatever side of the debate someone may be interested in is irrelevant. Science is not done on a consensus basis- it's established with undoctored facts, uses legitimate peer review processes, and requires duplicable results. Those emails clearly show that this is not the case.

Even some of the scientists working with IPCC actually agree with this- e.g.:
nzclimatescience.net - STILL MORE BREAKING NEWS ON CLIMATEGATE - CALL FOR UN IPCC TO BE DISBANDED

" [Copenhagen] is about raw politics, not about the politics of science. [...] It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science. It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course." - Mike Hulme, University of East Anglia.

Understand that this particular recommendation based on flawed science is being given to the IPCC, which is recommending to the UN that it create a global tax system complete with forcing industries to adopt "green" technologies as well as making an intergovernmental agreement that will likely affect the way our [US] Constitution functions.

For those of you that don't think that this is a big deal, consider that it likely won't stop there. History has shown that things like this hardly ever do.

 

[Big Al]

Well, appearances can be deceiving.

I bolded the bits in your post that you should pay attention to. I suggest that before you expound on an opinion based on what you find on the internet, you check your sources. You ask that other people read the data and look at it honestly. Sorry man but you need to do the same.

I've seen that petition before. It's known as the Oregon Petition and it's been around since the late 1990's. It has been throughly de-bunked many times. Here is a link to one such analysis.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Just because some congressmen have been sucked in by it (even Ron Paul from you wrote), doesn't mean it's true.

Please read the whole article before you make up your mind.

"...an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research"

This hardly sounds like an objective review. I think that for all of our sakes we need to start looking at things objectively instead of "rooting for our team" on this extremely important issue.

Let's say that's the case with this petition (surely it's possible)...did you read the emails? Did you read the treaty? While some people seem to be OK with the language in there, I believe most people interested in scientific objectivity and the general welfare of their countries wouldn't be.

 

[Big Al]

Is criticizing Gore on his not-so-perfect actions really what we should be focused on?

If it involves committing fraud on a global scale at the severe expense of almost every human being in the civilized world, then I think he should definitely be held accountable.

We'll have to wait and see, but I think over the next few weeks/months there's going to be a lot of research and subsequent revelations regarding the true nature of many commonly believed things.

 

[Big Al]

Another interesting update: UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more' | Climate Depot

 

[Bbucko]

This has nothing to do with my choice of candidates for the latest election. This has to do with clear cut information that many people are neglecting to read for themselves- all because they think that what's happening in the world is being done in their best interests.

Have you by chance read any of the emails yourself? What about that last post I made? I would appreciate your opinion on the matter.

When you make a statement that a federal response to climate change amounts to "taxation without representation" as you do above, then yeah, it does.

Here's my take on the entire thing summed up neatly for you:

1) I am not a scientist, nor has my mind been trained to follow the scientific method: I am an artist, a designer and an author, all fields which reward a more creative mind than a purely rational and analytical one.

2) My sole understanding of science and the scientific method comes from my having been diagnosed HIV+ in my mid-thirties, about thirteen years ago: at that point I decided that I needed to learn all the hard, real science available to me to help keep me alive, and it involved investigating how the scientific method differs from conventional, intuitive thought in many profound ways.

3) Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are actually a very conservative group who decide by consensus only after having peer-reviewed hard, repeatable data; they are not subject to whims or flights of fancy or "magical thinking".

4) The consensus among the world's scientists is that climate change is real and that it's at least partially the fault of human activity.

It took years for me to research and understand (to the degree that I even do) how HIV works in the human body, and which medications do what to help combat it. I took that time because it's my own life we're discussing here, not something as abstract as global climate patterns over decades. It's probable that the real effects of climate change will not effect me or the time I have remaining, so at this point my interest becomes more humanitarian in nature.

 

[Big Al]

When you make a statement that a federal response to climate change amounts to "taxation without representation" as you do above, then yeah, it does.

So you're ok with a UN global tax based on flawed science?

Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are actually a very conservative group who decide by consensus only after having peer-reviewed hard, repeatable data; they are not subject to whims or flights of fancy or "magical thinking".

Some are subject to influence, peer pressure, and financial reward though. The emails show a flaw in the peer review process as well:

The consensus among the world's scientists is that climate change is real and that it's at least partially the fault of human activity.

True science isn't based on consensus though. The consensus among scientists a few short centuries ago was that they Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Admitting to skepticism in those days was tantamount to heresy. When the peer review method is flawed, there's no real consensus either.

That being said, I admire your dedication to a science that's truly helping people. It's incredible when you think that HIV was considered a death sentence until recently. You've taken the time to educate yourself on a field of study that's both very complex and underfunded. If more people dedicated themselves (at least in part) to the betterment of humanity then you and I probably wouldn't be discussing one of the most shocking things to ever happen- with so few so far paying any real attention to it.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

If it involves committing fraud on a global scale at the severe expense of almost every human being in the civilized world, then I think he should definitely be held accountable.

I completely disagree here.
Again, look at what we're arguing over and what the solutions consist of. For people like you or I, many of the things a person can do to aid in preventing global warming, climate change and improve the environment don't even cost you money. Plus, you might want to rethink just how much your "unwanted contribution" is to this cause that you claim to be some kind of "global scale fraud". Because once you realize just how insignificant your actual tax contribution is, compared to the amount of money that is actually donated towards the cause by people voluntarily, perhaps you'll start to see why this is such a pointless argument. It wouldn't even be enough to get you on Judge Judy.

At the end of the day, this is about whether or not you want to cater to suggestions that can better your life and improve the planet we live in. That doesn't suggest any kind of mass conspiracy.

 

[Big Al]

I completely disagree here.
Again, look at what we're arguing over and what the solutions consist of. For people like you or I, many of the things a person can do to aid in preventing global warming, climate change and improve the environment don't even cost you money. Plus, you might want to rethink just how much your "unwanted contribution" is to this cause that you claim to be some kind of "global scale fraud". Because once you realize just how insignificant your actual tax contribution is, compared to the amount of money that is actually donated towards the cause by people voluntarily, perhaps you'll start to see why this is such a pointless argument. It wouldn't even be enough to get you on Judge Judy.

At the end of the day, this is about whether or not you want to cater to suggestions that can better your life and improve the planet we live in. That doesn't suggest any kind of mass conspiracy.

This is about power and money, and by money I'm talking about trillions of dollars over time. That's certainly no small amount!

Recommending changes to one's lifestyle is one thing; forcing entire nations into financial and governmental subservience based on fraud is something completely different.

 

[Big Al]

I've been a long time reader of Dr. Tipler's works. To hear him speak so powerfully on this subject really puts things into perspective: Climategate: The Skeptical Scientist's View

 

[B_VinylBoy]

This is about power and money, and by money I'm talking about trillions of dollars over time. That's certainly no small amount!

Oooooooooooooo... sounds like a bad Harrison Ford movie.

Recommending changes to one's lifestyle is one thing; forcing entire nations into financial and governmental subservience based on fraud is something completely different.

And who's forcing you to not eat meat, buy a hybrid car or turn off the lights when you leave a room? Seriously, Al... nobody wants YOUR money. Not this badly.

 

[Big Al]

Oooooooooooooo... sounds like a bad Harrison Ford movie.

I really wish it were.

And whose forcing you to not eat meat, buy a hybrid car or turn off the lights when you leave a room? Seriously, Al... nobody wants YOUR money. Not this badly.

On that point I disagree wholeheartedly.

 

[justasimpleguy]

Big Al, you are being so obtuse it's not funny. Denial is not funny. People die because conservative minds don't want anything disturbing the status quo. Their little bubble of peace, prosperity and comfort.

Climate Change in Bangladesh: Rising sea levels threaten low-lying lands
Bangladesh is going to be underwater in a few years. So will alot of the coastal areas in Southeast Asia. Millions of people will be displaced.

Capt. Charles Moore on the seas of plastic | Video on TED.com
Not to mention we are poisoning the ocean itself with our wasteful consumer throwaway economy and culture. We have to change. Reality is not negotiable.

And yes, I read the emails and the other stuff you posted. They don't sound incriminating to me. Did you read or watch anything I posted? Because if you didn't this entire exercise is pointless.

 

[Mr Ed in Mass]

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Home

 

[justasimpleguy]

Mr Ed, SPPI is run by a Republican partisan who worked on several campaigns and whose head scientist is considered a crank.
His explanation is that climate is influenced by solar variation. Solar variation has nothing to do with the CO2 levels in our atmosphere, which are waaaay too high according to data from old ice and sediment. Are you guys serious or just jerking the rest of us around?

 

[Mr Ed in Mass]

Did you bother to even check out the site,or just look,and say "rubbish"?
Instead of a serious discussion,it's just more of the same ole ,same ole.

Don't waste your breath anymore more, Big Al,

 

[B_VinylBoy]

That's right... rebel against the establishment! Send a message to those evil, environmental scam artists! Turn on every electrical appliance in your home! Crank your water faucets on high just to wash your left toe! Warm up the grill and slap on a heard of cows on skewers! Head, hooves, udders and all! But please, no vegetables because green peppers are for pussies! Take your five Hummers, put them on cinder blocks and let the back wheels run at top speed until you burn out all of your diesel fuel! Tell those environmental pansies to stick it... they can't have your money!!!!



Yeah, and when your light bill goes through the roof, you're morbidly obese and it costs more to buy gas than it does to pay your health insurance, don't blame it on Al Gore, OK?

 

[Guy-jin]

So you're ok with a UN global tax based on flawed science?

You may be shocked to find out how much of your taxes is based on science that you don't understand. This is no different. Almost as much of them as are based on emotions. :wink:

Some are subject to influence, peer pressure, and financial reward though. The emails show a flaw in the peer review process as well:

If you publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it is available for other scientists to see, test, criticize and refute. Small findings may go a long time without being exposed as false. But false findings are nearly always exposed as false thanks to the peer-reviewed system because scientists-at-large are interested in finding the truth.

This may be meaningless to the layman, who pictures a room full of all the scientists in a given field agreeing to lie to the world because some mysterious force is influencing them/peer pressuring them/paying them off.

But as a scientist myself, I assure you there is no such room, and no matter what field you're speaking of, there will always be a large number of skeptics unless something is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. And there will never be the ability to influence all or even MOST of the scientists in a field to lie about the thing they've dedicated their lives to finding the truth about.

True science isn't based on consensus though. The consensus among scientists a few short centuries ago was that they Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Admitting to skepticism in those days was tantamount to heresy. When the peer review method is flawed, there's no real consensus either.

First of all, your statement is a fallacy. "Science" a few short centuries ago was nothing like science today. And it wasn't other "scientists" who considered skeptics equivalent to heretics back then.

To be blunt, your entire thesis that the scientific method does not work is incorrect.

 

[Big Al]

You may be shocked to find out how much of your taxes is based on science that you don't understand. This is no different. Almost as much of them as are based on emotions. :wink:

I think the stakes are very different in this case.

If you publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, it is available for other scientists to see, test, criticize and refute. Small findings may go a long time without being exposed as false. But false findings are nearly always exposed as false thanks to the peer-reviewed system because scientists-at-large are interested in finding the truth.

This may be meaningless to the layman, who pictures a room full of all the scientists in a given field agreeing to lie to the world because some mysterious force is influencing them/peer pressuring them/paying them off.

But as a scientist myself, I assure you there is no such room, and no matter what field you're speaking of, there will always be a large number of skeptics unless something is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. And there will never be the ability to influence all or even MOST of the scientists in a field to lie about the thing they've dedicated their lives to finding the truth about.

One issue at the heart of the matter is peer review. CRU excluded dissenting views. When documents are peer reviewed exclusively amongst scientist holding the same point of view, the process becomes corrupted.

First of all, your statement is a fallacy. "Science" a few short centuries ago was nothing like science today. And it wasn't other "scientists" who considered skeptics equivalent to heretics back then.

To be blunt, your entire thesis that the scientific method does not work is incorrect.

The scientific method is not in question here- this particular institution and their cohorts way of handling it is. "Science" several hundred years ago was very closely tied to the clergy, and yes, dissenting opinions are treated more politely than they were back then, but the territorialism regarding certain fields today is apparently no different.

Again, some of you are trying to make this about me and my opinions, reviews, etc. Please put that aside for the moment. Don't take my word for it- read the data for yourselves. That's really all I'm asking from this thread.

I didn't intend for this thread to become a debate or an exercise. You're entitled to your own opinions, and if you've read the data and still feel OK with what's going on then I've accomplished what I set out to do.

This isn't about whether or not you believe in AGW, nor if you're a Republican, Democrat, etc.- it's about the civilian population allowing this global merger to forward under false pretenses (the doctored science from the IPCC) because they're unaware of what's truly going on. I can understand how just the though of this is shocking, unrealistic, and repugnant to many of you- nevertheless, it's happening and will likely go though if people ignore it. This whole issue is picking up steam and every day more details about this are being exposed.