mnealtx 0 #51 November 24, 2009 QuoteBusiness has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. But enough about Al Gore and the AGW pseudo-scientists.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #52 November 24, 2009 Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Blues, Dave Ya, those scientist who have been caught in a great big lie and cover up??? (suppose you all heard the emails have been confirmed authentic. And those "scientists" you so support have now been caught changing data for the biggest proponent group of all , the UN. But go ahead, keep on supporting them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #53 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Why is it that the most vociferous proponents and opponents of AGW theory are usually those with the least actual knowledge of the subject? Politicians, talking heads, and their supporters seem far more convinced one way or another than, you know, scientists. Because I fear the scientists are vying for funding dollars for research. No funding necessary if there isn't a problem. Only science can tell us if there is a problem. Plus, I suspect the economic interests of the oil/gas/auto/coal industries are somewhat more robust than that of the research community. Blues, Dave True, but not by the supporters I guess. They lie to support their position"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #54 November 24, 2009 >Businesses which are controlled by the consumersshareholders >or the government which needs AGW we can vote out of office? Fixed that for ya. You have no control over Exxon; their only goal is to make money. If that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. OTOH, You do have some control over your government. The biggest fear of any politician is looking bad in front of their constituents by making bad decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #55 November 24, 2009 QuoteLets see which group has more power? Businesses which are controlled by the consumers (meaning if the consumer believe AWG is happening will stop using exxon and such and those business fail) or the government which needs AGW to gain ultimate power over the business and consumers and has already taken the power to take a business such as GM and do as it pleases with it and controls the consumers with inflation, "stimulus", cap and trade, etc? Do you honestly believe that crap about businesses protecting the environment because that's what the public wants? If that were true, why has my industry (environmental remediation) been booming for decades? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 November 24, 2009 QuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #57 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteBusiness has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. But enough about Al Gore and the AGW pseudo-scientists. With what qualifications do you discredit all pro-AGW findings? This is what I was talking about with my first post in this thread. The most adamant opponents and proponents are usually regular joe's who dabble first and foremost in politics, not environmental science. If you look through these types of threads, you can usually pick out those posters who are more aware of scientific methods, if on no other basis than their relatively frugal use of capital letters. Personally, I think there are valid questions to be answered, and that findings either way should be considered with a critical but open mind. And if we get to a point where reasonable, knowledgeable minds disagree, we should take action only on the basis of a substantially validated risk assessment that considers environmental and economic impacts. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #58 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #59 November 24, 2009 >The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn >well know it, Bill. No, it really doesn't. When's the last time a politician got a (legal) multi-million dollar bonus for making the government a lot of money? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #60 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote*** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #61 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteBusiness has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. But enough about Al Gore and the AGW pseudo-scientists. With what qualifications do you discredit all pro-AGW findings? This is what I was talking about with my first post in this thread. The most adamant opponents and proponents are usually regular joe's who dabble first and foremost in politics, not environmental science. If you look through these types of threads, you can usually pick out those posters who are more aware of scientific methods, if on no other basis than their relatively frugal use of capital letters. More appeal to authority, yay. I was always told "if it's not repeatable, it's not science" - why is it that only the AGW folks can get the "right" results, Dave? Why is it that they had to "hide the decline"? Why is it that they had to keep trimming more and more trees out of a sample so that the result fit the hypothesis? Why is it that the AGW folks had to pressure science journals to not accept submissions from anti-AGW scientists? Go read the emails. Look at the analyses from someone OTHER than the 'consensus'. QuotePersonally, I think there are valid questions to be answered, and that findings either way should be considered with a critical but open mind. And if we get to a point where reasonable, knowledgeable minds disagree, we should take action only on the basis of a substantially validated risk assessment that considers environmental and economic impacts. Blues, Dave I don't disagree with that. Now that the emails and data and the shit that the 'consensus' has been pulling is out in the open, hopefully an HONEST dialog can start.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #62 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #63 November 24, 2009 Quote>The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn >well know it, Bill. No, it really doesn't. When's the last time a politician got a (legal) multi-million dollar bonus for making the government a lot of money? *rolls eyes* Government, Bill - not an individual politician...unless you somehow think that fed.gov isn't going to get anything from "crap and tax"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #64 November 24, 2009 QuoteBecause there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Perhaps YOU can explain how a specific tree can be a reliable indicator of temperature change one year, then cease to be the next. Sorry - if you have to falsify data so that the result fits the hypothesis, then you're doing science, you're doing fraud. Defend it all you want - it's still fraud.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #65 November 24, 2009 I'm still looking through the stolen files, but I did find a funny cartoon there. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #66 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #68 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent? Thanks for giving me a choice! I have decided to stick to my own tangent. OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skiskyrock 0 #69 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Perhaps YOU can explain how a specific tree can be a reliable indicator of temperature change one year, then cease to be the next. Sorry - if you have to falsify data so that the result fits the hypothesis, then you're doing science, you're doing fraud. Defend it all you want - it's still fraud. well, you could cut the tree down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent? Thanks for giving me a choice! I have decided to stick to my own tangent. OK? Seeing as how that is the ONLY choice you really have at this point, your choice is understandable"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #71 November 25, 2009 Quote I'm still looking through the stolen files, but I did find a funny cartoon there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #72 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #73 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChangoLanzao 0 #74 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,406 #75 November 25, 2009 >Government, Bill - not an individual politician . . . CEO's get multi million dollar bonuses for doing things that improve profitability. Politicians don't. CEO's cannot be 'removed' by the general public for making poor decisions. Politicians can (although all too often the public lets them get away with doing a bad job.) >unless you somehow think that fed.gov isn't going to get anything >from "crap and tax"? They'll probably get trillions! Just like they did from the SOx cap and trade program that's already in effect. Why, the money they made from that makes Exxon's profits look like a child's allowance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 3 of 22 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. 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. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
mnealtx 0 #61 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteBusiness has the money and they will prevail at the expense of Science. But enough about Al Gore and the AGW pseudo-scientists. With what qualifications do you discredit all pro-AGW findings? This is what I was talking about with my first post in this thread. The most adamant opponents and proponents are usually regular joe's who dabble first and foremost in politics, not environmental science. If you look through these types of threads, you can usually pick out those posters who are more aware of scientific methods, if on no other basis than their relatively frugal use of capital letters. More appeal to authority, yay. I was always told "if it's not repeatable, it's not science" - why is it that only the AGW folks can get the "right" results, Dave? Why is it that they had to "hide the decline"? Why is it that they had to keep trimming more and more trees out of a sample so that the result fit the hypothesis? Why is it that the AGW folks had to pressure science journals to not accept submissions from anti-AGW scientists? Go read the emails. Look at the analyses from someone OTHER than the 'consensus'. QuotePersonally, I think there are valid questions to be answered, and that findings either way should be considered with a critical but open mind. And if we get to a point where reasonable, knowledgeable minds disagree, we should take action only on the basis of a substantially validated risk assessment that considers environmental and economic impacts. Blues, Dave I don't disagree with that. Now that the emails and data and the shit that the 'consensus' has been pulling is out in the open, hopefully an HONEST dialog can start.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 November 24, 2009 Quote>The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn >well know it, Bill. No, it really doesn't. When's the last time a politician got a (legal) multi-million dollar bonus for making the government a lot of money? *rolls eyes* Government, Bill - not an individual politician...unless you somehow think that fed.gov isn't going to get anything from "crap and tax"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #64 November 24, 2009 QuoteBecause there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Perhaps YOU can explain how a specific tree can be a reliable indicator of temperature change one year, then cease to be the next. Sorry - if you have to falsify data so that the result fits the hypothesis, then you're doing science, you're doing fraud. Defend it all you want - it's still fraud.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #65 November 24, 2009 I'm still looking through the stolen files, but I did find a funny cartoon there. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #66 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #67 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #68 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent? Thanks for giving me a choice! I have decided to stick to my own tangent. OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #69 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Perhaps YOU can explain how a specific tree can be a reliable indicator of temperature change one year, then cease to be the next. Sorry - if you have to falsify data so that the result fits the hypothesis, then you're doing science, you're doing fraud. Defend it all you want - it's still fraud. well, you could cut the tree down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #70 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIf that requires them to spend billions on a misinformation campaign, then they will - and will be handsomely rewarded. The exact same thing holds true for governments and you damn well know it, Bill. Our government is accountable to The People, that's what America stands for ... the corporations are sometimes accountable to their shareholders but not The People. How can you see yourself as a patriot and at the same not believe that Democracy is far better than consumerism? Sheesh! Nice misdirect - now, do you want to post to what I actually WROTE, or keep going on your own tangent? Thanks for giving me a choice! I have decided to stick to my own tangent. OK? Seeing as how that is the ONLY choice you really have at this point, your choice is understandable"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #71 November 25, 2009 Quote I'm still looking through the stolen files, but I did find a funny cartoon there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #72 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #73 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #74 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote *** Actually, FOX didn't distort anything and Media Matters has it's head up it's ass again. But hey, beats having to respond to the emails and data, right? So, John...if AGW is so REAL and SUCH a PROBLEM... why'd they have to cook the books and exclude data to make the data fit the hypothesis? Why'd they have to put notations into the data saying "don't use this data for calculations past 1960". Why'd they have to 'hide the decrease'? Because there is a known problem with the data set 1960-present and people that did the original research recommend not using it because it doesn't agree with the actual temperature data available and they haven't figured out why yet? That including the data would lead to a spurious decrease in the data which is clearly not correct? All data has limitations, and correcting for them and substituting higher quality data when available and scientifically justified is not fraud. IF your altimeter stuck at 5K would you go in waiting for it to change, or use an alternate method? Are you really trying to explain Science to this guy? It appears that anybody can explain science better than the main group of the IPCC scientists can at this point huh Well, you have to understand that they had no idea they would end up trying to explain it to YOU. Well, being the frauds that they are, nobody will listen to them anyway don't you think Other scientists will. They don't care what your interpretation is. That's kinda how science works Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #75 November 25, 2009 >Government, Bill - not an individual politician . . . CEO's get multi million dollar bonuses for doing things that improve profitability. Politicians don't. CEO's cannot be 'removed' by the general public for making poor decisions. Politicians can (although all too often the public lets them get away with doing a bad job.) >unless you somehow think that fed.gov isn't going to get anything >from "crap and tax"? They'll probably get trillions! Just like they did from the SOx cap and trade program that's already in effect. Why, the money they made from that makes Exxon's profits look like a child's allowance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
