Climate-gate

Photizo

Photizo

Ambassador/Envoy
Valued Senior Member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...82774.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald...rade-laws/

I'm drawing attention to a neglected story concerning hacked emails providing incontrovertible evidence that global warming (along with human culpability regarding same) cannot be considered as anything other than theory. Instead, it is essentially touted as fact, and, consequently used as a pretext for establishing global governance in various forms. The collusion revealed by these emails resulting in suppression of evidence and the marginalization/discrediting of opponents/skeptics (who should be included in the process of peer review), severely undermines/calls into question the credibility of those employing the scientific method. I've said as much back in the day in another forum. I had never had a problem with 'science' per se, but with those doing the science. Therefore, despite limited benefits, when one considers who is actually 'doing science' i.e. employing the scientific method, science is hamstrung by definition. This conclusion is inescapable.

The story about the emails should be front page news.

Thoughts?
 
This story is neglected by most people, except the ones who want to prove that climate science is a fraud.

Which I find personally amusing, do they also want to prove that economic science is a fraud? How about those rocket scientists?
I mean, trying to prove that scientists collude on data-mining and sharing is like trying to prove that humans are naturally inquisitive as a species...

BTW, what "proof" is there for suppression of data, alteration of data, and "the establishment of global governance", do you have anything apart from some emails and a conclusion based on opinion?
 
This story is neglected by most people, except the ones who want to prove that climate science is a fraud.
Click to expand...

This story is conveniently ignored by those whose blind faith shackles them to the irrational dogmas of the global warming sect. Such are the ways of the ignoranti.

... what "proof" is there for suppression of data, alteration of data, and "the establishment of global governance", do you have anything apart from some emails and a conclusion based on opinion?
Click to expand...


The confession is straight from the proverbial horses' mouths. The pseudoscientists' own words bewray themselves. Of course, this is not uncommon behavior among the faithful: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

Indeed, there is no greater faith in all of Israel.
 
This thread should be closed since there was already another active one going on the very same subject matter.

I would also suggest the OPoster pay closer attention before repeating threads again.
 
Photizo said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...82774.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/gerald...rade-laws/

I'm drawing attention to a neglected story concerning hacked emails providing incontrovertible evidence that global warming (along with human culpability regarding same) cannot be considered as anything other than theory. Instead, it is essentially touted as fact, and, consequently used as a pretext for establishing global governance in various forms. The collusion revealed by these emails resulting in suppression of evidence and the marginalization/discrediting of opponents/skeptics (who should be included in the process of peer review), severely undermines/calls into question the credibility of those employing the scientific method. I've said as much back in the day in another forum. I had never had a problem with 'science' per se, but with those doing the science. Therefore, despite limited benefits, when one considers who is actually 'doing science' i.e. employing the scientific method, science is hamstrung by definition. This conclusion is inescapable.

The story about the emails should be front page news.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

And now this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

These articles bring to light "An Inconvenient Truth".
 
 
This news was all over the internet.

I'd say at the very least the scientists are intentionally manipulating data in a non-objective way, designed to fool the public.

Guess what, in my country there is a total blackout on this news. It was never reported in mainstream media. Guess it's because the government here is real big on climate change. Lots of $$ and political brownie points there.
 
Arch_Rival said:
This news was all over the internet.

I'd say at the very least the scientists are intentionally manipulating data in a non-objective way, designed to fool the public.

Guess what, in my country there is a total blackout on this news. It was never reported in mainstream media. Guess it's because the government here is real big on climate change. Lots of $$ and political brownie points there.
Click to expand...

How many governments is that? You say there is a blackout in YOUR country. Which one is that? Isn't that really ANY member nation of the UN?
 
arch rival said:
I'd say at the very least the scientists are intentionally manipulating data in a non-objective way, designed to fool the public.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't.

Why would anyone? The data ended up being published in non-manipulated form, the "public" that followed the arguments of the scientists now being questioned remains unfooled.

The fooled public so far has been the public that has been accepting the arguments of the political critics of those scientists. This latest argument of these political critics resembles the others of the recent past, in that great consequences and large conspiracies are built on small and normal contingencies via errors in reasoning - which are then given wide publicity and media exposure via some mysterious agency that looks a lot like bribery and corruption.

Anyone who has believed a single thing that serial liar James Inhofe (politician, US Congress) ever said about any scientific topic whatsoever has been badly misled, for example. Yet that's whom we are presented with, as spokesman for this latest ginned up shitfling:
photizo's recommended link said:
Most vocal seems to be Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Inhofe demanded on Friday a hearing into the IPCC's research to determine whether it "cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not."
Click to expand...

We are supposed to have a Senate hearing into the "IPCC's research", James "Creationist" Inhofe presiding? Lord love a duck.
 
iceaura said:
I wouldn't.

Why would anyone? The data ended up being published in non-manipulated form, the "public" that followed the arguments of the scientists now being questioned remains unfooled.

The fooled public so far has been the public that has been accepting the arguments of the political critics of those scientists. This latest argument of these political critics resembles the others of the recent past, in that great consequences and large conspiracies are built on small and normal contingencies via errors in reasoning - which are then given wide publicity and media exposure via some mysterious agency that looks a lot like bribery and corruption.

Anyone who has believed a single thing that serial liar James Inhofe (politician, US Congress) ever said about any scientific topic whatsoever has been badly misled, for example. Yet that's whom we are presented with, as spokesman for this latest ginned up shitfling:

We are supposed to have a Senate hearing into the "IPCC's research", James "Creationist" Inhofe presiding? Lord love a duck.
Click to expand...

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=792702

Check out this video providing a brief synopsis of the Copenhagen treaty (this is the video google buried, mentioned in the article cited above):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

I have read reports indicating that the US is backing off a bit in their enthusiasm for this treaty, however, what is noted by the speaker is the desired direction for the government pushing this agenda.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
I wouldn't.

Why would anyone? The data ended up being published in non-manipulated form, the "public" that followed the arguments of the scientists now being questioned remains unfooled.
Click to expand...

Simple, if the data show a decline, it shows a decline. You don't use mathematical tricks to hide it. But in the end they cannot publish faked data. Within all the manipulated data released, if anyone could see through the mathematical tricks, the raw data will be there.

Of course, there are those not fooled. This is why there are skeptics questioning the scientists.
 
That's just one center studying global warming. Scientists are people too, subject to human frailties. This episode in no way proves that global warming is not happening, just ask all the Eskimos who have to move their entire villages due to lack of sea ice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top