up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is there any substance to GISS/NASA altering records for political purposes or is this another conspiracy theory blog? Depends on your politics whether you dismiss or consider I guess. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/ Steven Goddard is not even his real name. His name is Tony Heller and he has nothing to do Climate Science. He runs a Climate Denier blogsite funded by Fossil Fuel industry. Ask Tony about the call he got from NOAA and how he had to quickly retract his comments on alleged data manipulation. It was a pretty short conversation from what I hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) Here is a funny response to Climate Denier Steven Goddard an alias of Tony Heller. It is just another blogger but very funny in dealing with the Climate Denier propaganda by Goddard / Heller. I love the title: Fox News Flash! NASA Fakes Temp Data! Obama Born in Kenya! Batboy Found in Cave! LMAO http://climatecrocks.com/tag/steven-goddard/ Edited December 23, 2015 by up2u2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linzz Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is there any substance to GISS/NASA altering records for political purposes or is this another conspiracy theory blog? Depends on your politics whether you dismiss or consider I guess. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/ Steven Goddard is not even his real name. His name is Tony Heller and he has nothing to do Climate Science. He runs a Climate Denier blogsite funded by Fossil Fuel industry. Ask Tony about the call he got from NOAA and how he had to quickly retract his comments on alleged data manipulation. It was a pretty short conversation from what I hear. OK so all of his data showing altered graphs fabrications then? Serious question as there is such a huge amount of data that has not been retracted or withdrawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Is there any substance to GISS/NASA altering records for political purposes or is this another conspiracy theory blog? Depends on your politics whether you dismiss or consider I guess. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/ Steven Goddard is not even his real name. His name is Tony Heller and he has nothing to do Climate Science. He runs a Climate Denier blogsite funded by Fossil Fuel industry. Ask Tony about the call he got from NOAA and how he had to quickly retract his comments on alleged data manipulation. It was a pretty short conversation from what I hear. OK so all of his data showing altered graphs fabrications then? Serious question as there is such a huge amount of data that has not been retracted or withdrawn Of course Global surface temperature data is processed and altered. Not unusual at all. If it wasn't you may as well shred the results as they would be WILDLY!!!!!! inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol It helps to read a post... "Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress." Perhaps Congress can find somebody bright enough to cut through the alarmist crap. At least they now have the data the NOAA earlier refused to provide their oversight committee. Yep...the most transparent administration in history strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol Sure they will need good mathematicians, but honest and impartial as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases — most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy — and, exactly how is that to be done, given that much greenhouse gas is emitted by nature? Are they going to connect every cow on the planet to a pipe to remove their methane emissions from the atmosphere, are they going to put a big bag on every volcano that erupts, are they going to cover the permafrost?. How many of the posters that support this meaningless pledgefest are prepared to give up using motorcars? no prizes for guessing none, which is the answer. Also, to say that they are going to stop climate change is impossible. Climate has been changing ever since the planet formed from gas. They really mean global warming, but don't want to use that phrase since it has been proven that the planet hasn't really warmed at all yet, to any significant degree. It's interesting that nothing was said about the only thing that really would make a difference- population reduction. Reduce the population to the same level as the 1900s and the GW problem goes away. To be sure, there aren't enough shovels to scoop away this pile of dung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol It helps to read a post... "Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress." Perhaps Congress can find somebody bright enough to cut through the alarmist crap. At least they now have the data the NOAA earlier refused to provide their oversight committee. Yep...the most transparent administration in history strikes again. I could understand if NOAA methodology had different results to UK Met, Berkeley Earth and Japan Met but they all agree. The usual Republican witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases — most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy — and, exactly how is that to be done, given that much greenhouse gas is emitted by nature? Are they going to connect every cow on the planet to a pipe to remove their methane emissions from the atmosphere, are they going to put a big bag on every volcano that erupts, are they going to cover the permafrost?. How many of the posters that support this meaningless pledgefest are prepared to give up using motorcars? no prizes for guessing none, which is the answer. Also, to say that they are going to stop climate change is impossible. Climate has been changing ever since the planet formed from gas. They really mean global warming, but don't want to use that phrase since it has been proven that the planet hasn't really warmed at all yet, to any significant degree. It's interesting that nothing was said about the only thing that really would make a difference- population reduction. Reduce the population to the same level as the 1900s and the GW problem goes away. To be sure, there aren't enough shovels to scoop away this pile of dung CO2 generated from the burning of Fossil Fuels has a different Carbon Isotope so it is easy to calculate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a result of burning Fossil Fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol Sure they will need good mathematicians, but honest and impartial as well. Guess what they will get? The exact same results and no flaw in the methodology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 In practical terms, achieving that goal means the world would have to stop emitting greenhouse gases — most of which come from the burning of oil, coal and gas for energy — and, exactly how is that to be done, given that much greenhouse gas is emitted by nature? Are they going to connect every cow on the planet to a pipe to remove their methane emissions from the atmosphere, are they going to put a big bag on every volcano that erupts, are they going to cover the permafrost?. How many of the posters that support this meaningless pledgefest are prepared to give up using motorcars? no prizes for guessing none, which is the answer. Also, to say that they are going to stop climate change is impossible. Climate has been changing ever since the planet formed from gas. They really mean global warming, but don't want to use that phrase since it has been proven that the planet hasn't really warmed at all yet, to any significant degree. It's interesting that nothing was said about the only thing that really would make a difference- population reduction. Reduce the population to the same level as the 1900s and the GW problem goes away. To be sure, there aren't enough shovels to scoop away this pile of dung CO2 generated from the burning of Fossil Fuels has a different Carbon Isotope so it is easy to calculate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that is a result of burning Fossil Fuels. Perhaps so, but unless natural CO2 doesn't cause GW then it should be included. I noticed with interest that the targets don't have to be met till the delegates will all have retired or died. That's really kicking the can down the road! They might have just agreed that science will come up with a solution in the next 40 years and left it at that. Far better than this waste of hot air talkfest would be to agree to fund a method to remove greenhouse gases from the air and dispose of them somewhere that they will never be a threat- bottom of the Mariana trench perhaps. Of course that wouldn't give them opportunities for freebie talkfests in the future though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 South Korea and Japan have both reacted to the removal of any legal challenges to development activities, as confirmed by the Paris Agreement, to announce they will be building over 60 new coal-fired plants in the next decade. Plus Japan, as part of its obligation to provide "climate finance" to developing nations, has announced loans for coal plants in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh as part of the drive to build an extra 1066 “high-efficiency, low-emission” coal plants in 10 Asian nations. Activists were already whining about Japan's refusal to buy into the "urgent action" narrative; about the politest comment was that the country was showing "a serious decrease in ambition" to combat global warming. I don't think the activists will be any happier after this, unless they have shares in BHP Billiton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The NOAA is now on a much shorter leash relating to their efforts to ignore Congress and continue hiding their data. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judicial Watch Sues for Documents Withheld From Congress in New Climate Data Scandal DECEMBER 22, 2015 (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress. Judicial Watch sued the Department of Commerce after the agency failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on October 30, 2015 Details found here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/ Good luck with that. I hope judicial watch has the best Mathematical Scientists in the world on retainer. They are sure going to need them. lol It helps to read a post... "Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress." Perhaps Congress can find somebody bright enough to cut through the alarmist crap. At least they now have the data the NOAA earlier refused to provide their oversight committee. Yep...the most transparent administration in history strikes again. I could understand if NOAA methodology had different results to UK Met, Berkeley Earth and Japan Met but they all agree. The usual Republican witch hunt. Nonsense. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Are you now proposing Congress should not exercise their constitutional duties? Perhaps if you were American you might have learned this at some point in your schooling. Then, perhaps not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 South Korea and Japan have both reacted to the removal of any legal challenges to development activities, as confirmed by the Paris Agreement, to announce they will be building over 60 new coal-fired plants in the next decade. Plus Japan, as part of its obligation to provide "climate finance" to developing nations, has announced loans for coal plants in India, Indonesia and Bangladesh as part of the drive to build an extra 1066 “high-efficiency, low-emission” coal plants in 10 Asian nations. Activists were already whining about Japan's refusal to buy into the "urgent action" narrative; about the politest comment was that the country was showing "a serious decrease in ambition" to combat global warming. I don't think the activists will be any happier after this, unless they have shares in BHP Billiton. What the anti carbon nutters ( they all flew to the talkfest, except the ones that live in Paris, and drive cars ) overlook in their fanatical attack on all carbon is that technology allows coal to be used WITHOUT releasing large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Yet they have an all or nothing approach to the problem. Far better than passing some meaningless, to do a long time in the future after I'm dead type of wish list, would be to work with the fossil fuel industry to make it cleaner. Personally, I'd like to see more public transport that runs when and where people need it, rather than the onslaught of private cars that is ruining the pleasant life that we could have with 50% less cars on the road. To go back to the population time bomb, I see that the population is now well over 7 billion ( I was still thinking it was around 6 billion ). So, if the population is now increasing at that rate, nothing any talkfest can agree on will make the slightest bit of difference, yet NOTHING is ever said about restricting birth control. In fact, the official mantra is that we need more people because of ageing- insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 "Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it. Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linzz Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Whether you be Republican and a skeptic or a Democrat and an alarmist or like me not an American but more skeptic than alarmist because it's more politics than science, I wish you all a very pleasant Christmas and a Happy new Year. Over and out on this thread for me. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) "Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it. Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific). somebody has being reading the dictionary PS: your last sentence is incomplete, do you mind completing it? Edited December 24, 2015 by sirineou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense. I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)." in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous. pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree, But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I could understand if NOAA methodology had different results to UK Met, Berkeley Earth and Japan Met but they all agree. The usual Republican witch hunt. Nonsense. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Are you now proposing Congress should not exercise their constitutional duties? Perhaps if you were American you might have learned this at some point in your schooling. Then, perhaps not. Congress is a waste of taxpayers money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense. I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)." in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous. pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree, But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is............. And the alternative to man made is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense. I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)." in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous. pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree, But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is............. And the alternative to man made is? are yo saying climate change can not be man made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up2u2 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 "Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it. Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific). somebody has being reading the dictionary PS: your last sentence is incomplete, do you mind completing it? More like someone swallowed a dictionary. arjunadawn posts are so convoluted with acrobatic prose his point becomes lost, confused and contradictory. Why use one word when you can use 20, seems to be his approach. Over 196 leaders of nations disagree with his view. They simply accept the science. His totally wrong anyway. Global Warming / Climate Change is purely scientifically based with evidence to underpin it's research. Religion is based on a belief with no evidence to underpin it. His last statement is gobbledegook as well . In that, burning of Fossil Fuels produces man made CO2 at a level that becomes a pollutant causing Global Warming and adverse Climate Change. So yes Pollution (CO2) and Climate Change are synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I could understand if NOAA methodology had different results to UK Met, Berkeley Earth and Japan Met but they all agree. The usual Republican witch hunt. Nonsense. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Are you now proposing Congress should not exercise their constitutional duties? Perhaps if you were American you might have learned this at some point in your schooling. Then, perhaps not. Congress is a waste of taxpayers money. Half of the federal government is a waste of taxpayer's money. Do you have a point in there somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostboy Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I commend the passion and zeal of those who want to take action to conserve and preserve the environment. You condemn them. Quite wrong. I fully support people who stand up for the protection and preservation of the environment. But the fact is, UN climate policy has nothing to do with the environment, as senior UN officials have publicly stated. In 2010, , , co-chair of a UN IPCC working group, was asked precisely that question in an interview. He replied: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy." Earlier this year, Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of the UN is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to undermine and reverse capitalism. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution." As I have said before, anyone who truly believes the world is at risk from global warming should feel profoundly betrayed by the Paris talks, which have given nations carte blanche to do as much or as little as they want to counter the "problem" of global warming. Very well. I accept your argument on the ideological, non-scientific agenda of some officials involved in the Climate Change issue. I do not yet accept that the objectives stated by the two officials you quoted are formally approved policy objectives. You are probably more aware of the governance structure of the IPCC process than I, but normally the Terms of Reference for working groups and committees will have the objectives clearly defined and detailed. The ideological views of some officials are not automatically an organisation's policy until such policy has been approved and adopted. Having said that, if your argument is against the economic ideology that you perceive in the Climate Change agenda, why do you not argue those points specifically. Merely posting extreme, incendiary or even mildly controversial statements from people as a means to discredit an agenda is insufficient. What is wrong with the ideals and sentiments in these two quotes? Do you deny that the economic development model centred on industrialisation from an agrarian model is not damaging to the environment? Are there not lessons to be learned from the experience of developed countries that have been through this process; a process whose consequences are being seen in Beijing now? Is not the experience of post-industrial societies also informative for the developing world? As for the idea of wealth re-distribution, Edenhofer is a German economist. The quote gives no indication of his ideology on this matter. Until that is established, then the context for his statement is questionable. I don't feel like reading up on German economists today so I will take the statement at face value. So then lets argue the points. I had the good fortune to help organise and listen to a seminar conducted by the Peruvian economist, Hernan de Soto talking about his views on capital http://www.amazon.com/The-Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Everywhere/dp/0465016154 and I believe he accurately identifies those elements that have made economies based on capital economically successful. Nothing really socialistic about this. More about governance, fairness and the administration of law. However there is also a lot of interest in the sociology of capitalism. With the failures of societies based on Maxist-Leninist principles to deal with inherent sociological flaws, there is still a strong interest in dealing with these aspects of capitalism, in particular the income inequality gap. The book by PIcketty http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/05/economist-explains has become very popular because it is one of the first of a new generation of thinking about these issues. So I will accept that the 'informed Denier' is actually arguing against economic socialism even though I do not accept that economic socialism is the official objective of the Climate Change agenda but I think the Deniers should start arguing these issues and not boring us to death with endless nitpicking about CO2 and all the damned weather charts. If this is an economic argument, then fine. Let's discuss it on this basis. And leave the scientists to do their work on assessing the impact of humans on the environment and developing technologies to mitigate this as a worthwhile end in itself to conserve resources for future generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Nice attempt at a grammar rebuttal but his sentence does make sense. I did not attempt to correct anyone's grammar the sentence is "Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific)." in which he says and I agree, pollution and climate change are not synonymous. pollution is manmade, again I agree and is horrific , again I agree, But then he stops there , and that's why it is a incomplete sentence for it to be complete there must be an, And climate change is............. And the alternative to man made is? are yo saying climate change can not be man made? Just helping you with your comprehension skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostboy Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 "Climate Change" is political ideology not science. "Climate Change" is an economic model based on redistribution, apportionment, and bills of attainder. "Climate Change" has its own religious component under the guise of ecumenicism. "Climate Change" is a liberation theology based entirely upon breaking the bonds that tie people to nations, regions, economics, religion, the tribal, and other ideology; fear is the solvent.The arrogance of those who trumpet this nonsense is only matched by the ignorance of those who buy it. Pollution and "Climate Change" are not synonymous; pollution is man-made (and horrific). Ecumenism is not about non-religiousness or about alternative 'religiosity'. It is about universality and multilateralism. Further liberation theology emerged as a consequence of US foreign policy in Latin America and the support of strong men whose violations of human rights are notorious and on record even though many of these criminals escaped justice. Merely using words out of context to be hyperbolic fosters disdain and demonstrates a hollowness of rationality. I accept that the economic ideology of Climate Change is not synonymous with Pollution. Do you accept that arguing the costs and benefits of different socio-economic systems is more effective on its own merits rather than in the context of climate data, attacks on scientists and their processes or the hurling of wild hyperbole. Do we now take the next step of literal burnings at the stake for dissenters from your orthodoxy? I guess though, this new theology has significant implications for the old stick in the muds and the way they live their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 .. attacks on scientists.. Dem ‘Witch Hunt’ Forces Scientist Out Of Global Warming Research An investigation by Democratic lawmakers into the sources of funding for scientists who challenge details of the greater global warming narrative has already forced one scientist [Dr Roger Pielke] to call it quits. ... the hurling of wild hyperbole... "A child born today may live to see humanity’s end" -- Reuters (2015) "Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable" -- Australian microbiologist Frank Fenner (2010) Bob Geldof has claimed that the Earth as we know it could end by 2030 thanks to the ravages of climate change. "Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth accelarates [sic] into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe." - Canadian National Do we now take the next step of literal burnings at the stake for dissenters from your orthodoxy? "I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Even mass murderers like Breivik should not be executed, in my opinion. GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death." - Professor Richard Parncutt Pot, meet kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now