Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
vanfullofretards

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

I don't really see what relevance that article has to the arguement though Casek, all it shows is that all the media hype and hate mail the guy recieved made him depressed and contemplated suicide. Personally I can see why the scientist were so defensive about the emails and trying to discredit their opposition because the people opposed to climate change certainly would use the exact same tactics.

 

 

It wasn't limited to discrediting. They were discussing the manipulation of data to go along with their agenda. Even in the code that was released there are programmer notes on how

he made changes/manipulated datasets.

 

It's plain and simple fraud on a global scale (considering this was the main reporting unit to the IPCC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

I am not saying what they did was right, however I don't think their actions completely discredit global warming. I am more inclined to agree with global warming than disagree with it, the level of pollutoin that man has inflicted on this planet doesn't just happen with no consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not saying what they did was right, however I don't think their actions completely discredit global warming. I am more inclined to agree with global warming than disagree with it, the level of pollutoin that man has inflicted on this planet doesn't just happen with no consequences.

 

 

It discredits anything they have to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it discredits what they have to say but it doesn't discredit global warming as a whole, it wasn't every single scientist that has studied and agrees with global warming that was part of this, I don't believe that the damage we have done to the planet hasn't had any consequnce, I think that would be fairly naive an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe it discredits what they have to say but it doesn't discredit global warming as a whole, it wasn't every single scientist that has studied and agrees with global warming that was part of this, I don't believe that the damage we have done to the planet hasn't had any consequnce, I think that would be fairly naive an idea.

 

 

East Anglia is the main hub for reporting to the IPCC. The emails clearly show that

there was communication between several top climate reporting Uni's around the globe.

It shows that these scientists (the ones involved in this debacle) were promoting an agenda.

 

 

That's all I'm saying. These guys are corrupt and we shouldn't listen to anything they have to

say.

 

Any other scientists I'm willing to listen to. Just not anyone connected to the UN's IPCC or East Anglia.

 

 

Let me back up my claims with this picture

IvKr0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but then on the flip side I bet the scientists saying there is no such thing as global warming get plenty of kickbacks from major oil companies and the like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit? I think you are the one that is talking out of your ass.

 

There is no scientific debate on whether Climate Change exists, There is only a Political Debate. Its a few Politicians and Corporate Assholes that are either too stupid to research the topic before drawing an opinion, or they just really don't care about future generations on this planet.

 

Look at the Philip Cooney character, an ex-lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute that was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in Bush's Administration. He edited the climate reports that reached congress, and it is a proven fact. He resigned after it went public. He now works for Exxon.

 

If you ask me, the Phillip Cooney story is way worse than a couple emails that went public.

 

This debate in here started because I said I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his view on the environment. No one in this thread has made me even consider voting for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit? I think you are the one that is talking out of your ass.

 

There is no scientific debate on whether Climate Change exists, There is only a Political Debate. Its a few Politicians and Corporate Assholes that are either too stupid to research the topic before drawing an opinion, or they just really don't care about future generations on this planet.

 

Look at the Philip Cooney character, an ex-lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute that was chief of staff of the Council on Environmental Quality in Bush's Administration. He edited the climate reports that reached congress, and it is a proven fact. He resigned after it went public. He now works for Exxon.

 

If you ask me, the Phillip Cooney story is way worse than a couple emails that went public.

 

This debate in here started because I said I would never vote for Ron Paul because of his view on the environment. No one in this thread has made me even consider voting for him.

 

 

You claimed and are still claiming that this is of little importance. That is why you got negaprops.

 

This "climategate" is of great importance. Have you not got it in your head that East Anglea is the reporting center for the IPCC? This isn't just an isolate few scientists.

 

Wanna talk about profits? Let's talk about Al Gore. Mr. Greenthumbs. Check into carbon credits and Al's company "Blood and Gore" (no shit, that's the name). Seems Al has already raked in tons by fearmongering liberals and children into believing that the oceans will rise and swallow up half of N. America, etc etc.

 

You should really see his house. All lit up with it's 20k a month power bill....but he's not home. He's flying around on his private jet collecting money from speaking tours and fearmongering.

 

It swings on both sides of the aisle, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It discredits anything they have to say about it.

 

Climategate is a load of horseshit. If anything, it shows that lay people jump to conclusions based on insufficient evidence far easier than scientists. From http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

 

"Some critics claim that the e-mails invalidate the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world scientific body that reaffirmed in a 2007 report that the earth is warming, sea levels are rising and that human activity is "very likely" the cause of "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century." But the IPCC’s 2007 report, its most recent synthesis of scientific findings from around the globe, incorporates data from three working groups, each of which made use of data from a huge number of sources — of which CRU was only one. The synthesis report notes key disagreements and uncertainties but makes the "robust" conclusion that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." (A robust finding is defined as "one that holds under a variety of approaches, methods, models and assumptions, and is expected to be relatively unaffected by uncertainties.")"

 

There is no smoking gun. It's science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/science/earth/03climate.html?th&emc=th

 

That is not a bad article, it certainly does not support your views in any way ,shape or form though. How about this line:

 

"Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked, while several investigations are still under way to determine whether others hold up. "

 

This line is also telling:

 

"The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent."

 

Just because many of the possible solutions to anthropogenic global warming are distasteful to you Casek, does not mean that it does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw that factcheck page. I don't know what to make of it. Who funded the creation of that site? Is it bipartisan?

 

Those emails are very telling. Especially the parts about the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

 

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up. Wow, great sleuthing guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

 

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up.

 

 

Really? They discussed how to make the data bend to their agenda, the programmers notes discuss how he made it bend to the agenda, etc.

 

 

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions

; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually

; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to

; the real temperatures.

 

 

 

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.

; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N

;

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid

; the decline

 

 

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid

; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

;

 

17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that

a sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key

output from the debug statements:

(..)

forrtl: error (75): floating point exception

IOT trap (core dumped)

..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the

sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!

 

 

Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I

immediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for

completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead

of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting

THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the

bloody station files!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw that factcheck page. I don't know what to make of it. Who funded the creation of that site? Is it bipartisan?

 

Those emails are very telling. Especially the parts about the code.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck

 

They are bipartisan, and they seem to take that stance seriously. They criticize everyone fairly equally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Casek, none of what you just posted proves anything unless you provide a LOT more context. Your assumptions are hemorrhaging right through your meager 'evidence.'

 

 

The climategate "scandal" was a giant load of hoo hah. In addition to the fact that the findings have been independently supported by many other groups worldwide, as well as the raw data being 100% freely available for anyone to pore over, the emails were evidence of very routine dealings that any scientist who has ever dealt in peer review journals and scientific journalism in general recognizes as part of the selection process. All of my scientist buddies were completely flabbergasted as to how that shit was interpreted.

 

And lets not forget that of 11 years worth of emails, that's the closest "evidence" they found that even remotely suggests some kind of cover up. Wow, great sleuthing guys!

 

Thank you, I've been saying this for a while. I have a lot of respect for scientists and this amateur-climatologist/conspiracy-nut bullshit pisses me off. It reminds me of some fat slob in the stands trying to heckle a pro athlete...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Casek, none of what you just posted proves anything unless you provide a LOT more context. Your assumptions are hemorrhaging right through your meager 'evidence.'

 

 

 

 

Thank you, I've been saying this for a while. I have a lot of respect for scientists and this amateur-climatologist/conspiracy-nut bullshit pisses me off. It reminds me of some fat slob in the stands trying to heckle a pro athlete...

 

 

(stop in 1960 to avoid

; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Casek, you negapropped me for "talking out of my ass". I'm sorry but can I ask you to explain the actual SCIENCE behind Climate Change if you are so convinced its a bunch of bullshit?
????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(stop in 1960 to avoid

; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

 

...and? Which decline? How are tree-ring density records affected and what exactly are the tree-ring density records indicative of? This sounds like a certain method of analysis is only accurate within a certain time period. Doesn't sound unusual. Nothing here indicates funny business.

 

I'm baffled that you can't see how much you're reading into this "evidence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere I read this thing, manifesto, diatribe, I forget, but it was in the last couple weeks. Anyway, it started out well by down playing the holocaust in some sort of 'knifey-spoony' Aussie strategy... "That's not a holocaust, THIS is a holocaust!".

 

And that always butters up the crowd... to hear the 'truth'!

 

In this case, the truth is DDT, or, rather the crux is DDT, the truth is that it's ban led to "literally brazilians of deaths!" from malaria and related disease. The US govt. and really all the empirical nations are desperately trying to cover this up. They don't want the blighted to recognize the blunder/subjugation SO...

 

here it comes...

 

wait for it...

 

'They' INVENTED global warming.

 

So, now we know...

 

It went on to say that I should join the Teabaggers. The entire reason I bring it up in here is because they had a Ron Paul link, plus, to, you know, promote awareness... and stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhere I read this thing, manifesto, diatribe, I forget, but it was in the last couple weeks. Anyway, it started out well by down playing the holocaust in some sort of 'knifey-spoony' Aussie strategy... "That's not a holocaust, THIS is a holocaust!".

 

And that always butters up the crowd... to hear the 'truth'!

 

In this case, the truth is DDT, or, rather the crux is DDT, the truth is that it's ban led to "literally brazilians of deaths!" from malaria and related disease. The US govt. and really all the empirical nations are desperately trying to cover this up. They don't want the blighted to recognize the blunder/subjugation SO...

 

here it comes...

 

wait for it...

 

'They' INVENTED global warming.

 

So, now we know...

 

It went on to say that I should join the Teabaggers. The entire reason I bring it up in here is because they had a Ron Paul link, plus, to, you know, promote awareness... and stuff...

 

 

The manual for my microwave invited me to David Crosby's fat camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not agreeing to the man's approach on how to deal with Global Warming is fine, saying that nothing is being done is something completely different.

 

Ron Paul needs to dump the Republican party and go back to his Independent roots.

 

It's prime time for a Independent candidate to take office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The manual for my microwave invited me to David Crosby's fat camp.

 

casek can you please explain to me your understanding of the "theory" of climate change. drop the political aspect and just tell me what scientific research you have observed. you have a pretty strong viewpoint, so it would seem that you would have a great understanding of this topic, but i have not once seen you bring any science into this. all of your "research" that you have cited is from google searches. none of them are science related at all, and it goes back to my point that the current debate on climate change is not a scientific debate, it is a political debate. stop listening to what other people have to say about the social aspects of this and read a fucking science book. its pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...