Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming

[vetusvates]

All males get microsurgical vasectomy at birth, when you earn enough money to reverse the surgery without insurance, you should also have enough money to feed a hungary mouth. Sounds like a plan to me :rofl:

Added to the list.

In fact, dare I start a "Who Gets To Reproduce" thread? :laugh:

 

[Pruddock]

Added to the list.

In fact, dare I start a "Who Gets To Reproduce" thread? :laugh:

LOL that would be freaking hilarious to read. I can already see it... :sidestep: :madeuce:

 

[vetusvates]

Well, at least it would be a "solution-oriented" thread to global warming and over-peopulation,
rather than just a "statement of the problem" thread.

 

[ruraldean]

Finally, the objections I'm hearing to any and all regulation keep coming back to political gains. That is, many people are objecting to any kind of system of restrictions because they don't want politicians to gain power. Well, we voted them into the most powerful positions in our nations. We can't then use that excuse to keep acting irresponsibly towards our planet. If we don't trust our leaders to lead, then why tolerate them at all?

I love this "We put them there so we must trust them" argument. Who is "we"? What are our alternatives?

I promise to take the alternative course of action providing:

A). It doesn't get me killed
B). It doesn't lose me my liberty

The world is populated by sheeple who by and large fail to question anything thrown at them. Hence the acceptance of the Global Warming argument as a man-made occurrence. It must be true because the government says so; it must be true because the government funded scientists say so. People who genuinely question are labelled "Deniers" and stigmatised. just look at the way the general populace bought the Iraq war following 9/11. Now our own UK Iraq war enquiry is revealing that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qieda (sp?) and that regime change was on the US agenda before 9/11. (Now if only we could link 9/11 with Saddam we could have ourselves the war we wanted - woohoo!).

Question everything - trust nothing - explore the alternatives.

 

[Rich Z]

...so anyone that acknowledges that the human race is very numerous is advocating culling the population? That's a massive leap, Rich, ridiculously so.

Don't be getting your panties all in a wad while we are having a discussion, please. You are taking a slap at the wrong person if you want to continue.... oke:

 

[TandJ]

The world is populated by sheeple who by and large fail to question anything thrown at them. Hence the acceptance of the Global Warming argument as a man-made occurrence. It must be true because the government says so; it must be true because the government funded scientists say so. People who genuinely question are labelled "Deniers" and stigmatised. just look at the way the general populace bought the Iraq war following 9/11. Now our own UK Iraq war enquiry is revealing that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qieda (sp?) and that regime change was on the US agenda before 9/11. (Now if only we could link 9/11 with Saddam we could have ourselves the war we wanted - woohoo!).

Sheeple.. Awesome selection of the spoken word.. There are vast numbers of sheeple.. Of course I get called a neo-con, which makes some people think I am a sheeple.. *lol*

I don't remember any proclamation that Bush said that Sadam is directly linked to the Al Quida.. I do remember him saying and it being said, that indeed he harboured them inside the country.. There are a lot of theroy's behind why it took place, and its very likely we are never going to be educated about the whole truths without spin..


Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[Nova_C]

Don't be getting your panties all in a wad while we are having a discussion, please. You are taking a slap at the wrong person if you want to continue.... oke:

? All I said was that going from my post to forced reduction of population was a leap. Who was slapping who? And wrong person? You and I were quoting each other.

Perhaps we're reading too much emotion into each other's post. I wasn't angry or anything.

 

[Rich Z]

? All I said was that going from my post to forced reduction of population was a leap. Who was slapping who? And wrong person? You and I were quoting each other.

Perhaps we're reading too much emotion into each other's post. I wasn't angry or anything.

I suppose you forgot the last sentence in this post:

...so anyone that acknowledges that the human race is very numerous is advocating culling the population? That's a massive leap, Rich, ridiculously so.

Your opinions are merely YOUR opinions, as mine are merely MINE. As best I can tell, you have not cornered the market on the breadth of knowledge that makes you an authority enough to call my opinions "ridiculous". I'm not calling your opinions that I disagree with as being "ridiculous", and I would appreciate it if you keep that sort of unwarranted belittling of me or anyone else on this site out of your conversations while you are here. If you can't seem to have a well thought out and mature conversation without it, then perhaps you need to reflect on this advice and try harder to change your ways before you piss off the wrong person.

 

[tricksterpup]

Added to the list.

In fact, dare I start a "Who Gets To Reproduce" thread? :laugh:

All Joking aside and to be honest this one of the reasons why I haven't had children in my life.
I do not want to be a burden on the planet any more and plus what kind of shape is this planet going to be in around 40 years from now?

 

[ruraldean]

I don't remember any proclamation that Bush said that Sadam is directly linked to the Al Quida.. I do remember him saying and it being said, that indeed he harboured them inside the country..

Regards.. Tim of T and J

The association came in a series of interviews with the American public sometime after the War. Overwhelmingly they blamed the Iraqis for the Twin Towers disaster. Can't find the reference, but I'll keep looking. :headbang:

 

[TandJ]

The association came in a series of interviews with the American public sometime after the War.

And of course to could pick and choose the most silly and outragous lines the American Public throws out and believes.. We cannot deny that any news organization doesn't like to run with outrageous things...

Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[vetusvates]

Climate change data dumped : Hiding the undoctored evidence...with...forethought.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

I thought data was data. What is QC'd and 'homogenised' data? LOLOL.

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

I would comment, but the 'comments following the article' are much more...precise. And hilarious.

'Massaged data'...that's got to be the greatest new meme of the times.

 

[tom e]

So if the raw data is what was used to show that the earth is warming, why do we need that? I thought everyone was in agreement on that as a result of many other studies... Just not in agreement regarding it's cause. Just trying to keep this all clear.. Looks to me like this study was meant to predict the rate of warming, but not to prove it's cause. I'm just pointing out that while we can't look at it seriously without the data, that just nullifies the 'rate' that it proposes, not the fact that the world is warming..

 

[TandJ]

I'm just pointing out that while we can't look at it seriously without the data, that just nullifies the 'rate' that it proposes, not the fact that the world is warming..

It pretty much just shoots the community in its own foot..

I'm just pointing out that while we can't look at it seriously without the data, that just nullifies the 'rate' that it proposes, not the fact that the world is warming..

Did I mentioned I found this to be funny? Sounds like a production floor sort of thing.. *lol*

 

[vetusvates]

Tom, maybe I'm making too great of a generalization, but the way I read the series of articles, (that includes this one : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece), is that the original data measurements (not immediately recent)...that where made to determine whether there was a) no change, or b) a change...to construct the original argument around the time the term "global warming" was originally becoming part of the socio-political lexicon---is the raw data now lost/discarded.

As most of us know, even if raw data points need to be tweaked to a uniform relationship to substantiate a given study or trend...scientifically speaking, the raw data must never be lost or discarded. The skeptics deserve every opportunity to look at the data, and the proponents might even find new, different, or refined conclusions looking at the original data, say, 10, 20, or 100 years from now.
No true, pure, altruistic scientist in his/her right mind is going to 'lose' OR 'discard' raw data measurements.

 

[kpkp123]

I know, for a fact, that I definitely, without question need to purchase bread, milk, cereal, and some hamburger today for my family as well as find a way to pay for my wife's recent need to visit the chiropractor.

On top of that I am being forced to purchase "energy saving" light bulbs that are more expensive and give off less light in my house as well as sort my garbage and recycle items, as dictated by the city, while paying more for this recycling service for an idea that may save the planet from an event that may be caused by humans or just may have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Maybe I'm a greedy ass for wanting to pay for needs instead of some unscientific ideal that politicians can't agree on because they have scientists in their back pocket. Color me bad. I'm all for picking up trash and not littering and getting better gas mileage and saving money, but not at the expense of being politically & economically raped in the process.

D80

I have to agree with D80 on this one. The idea that we should follow environmental regulations "just in case" we might be changing the climate is silly in my opinion. Think about US sanctions on countries that use the pesticide DDT. DDT was a super safe and effective pesticide and it was really cheap as well. It also pushed many birds to the brink of extinction because it weakened their eggs. The US mandated sanctions for countries that used DDT caused many third world countries to switch to other pesticides which were less safe, less effective, and more expensive. Because they had to pay more for pesticide they used less and cases of malaria (transmitted by mosquito) skyrocketed. In this case at least, an environmental regulation that seems perfectly reasonable to someone in the US has a real human toll on the other side of the globe.

 

[tom e]

I totally agree with you Eric, but it sounds like we're making it into something else (or maybe I am because of it's place in this thread?). EG- If I say that humans are descended from cornsnakes and then I say I've tossed the data that proves it, that doesn't take us any closer to discrediting evolution, just my theory about our descent from cornsnakes..

 

[vetusvates]

Well, I think I see the general direction of your point Tom.
But I am trying to look at it from the point of view of the scientific method. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until it is proven otherwise. And if the data that has (seemed to) proved it otherwise is found to be faulty, then the hypothesis remains a dangling unproven hypothesis.

Failing to prove one thing, does not support the existence of the opposite.
In this case I see it as (it might appear) global warming may just have failed to be proved. But it is not proved that it does not exist at all.

Is this what you mean?

 

[KJUN]

If you can't seem to have a well thought out and mature conversation without it, then perhaps you need to reflect on this advice and try harder to change your ways before you piss off the wrong person.

At least Nova hasn't called you the profane names that s/he has called some of the rest of us that dared to disagree with him/her..... :roflmao:

 

[Roy Munson]

At least Nova hasn't called you the profane names that s/he has called some of the rest of us that dared to disagree with him/her..... :roflmao:

I haven't seen the reports. :roflmao: Maybe Rich hasn't read every posted word either. :roflmao: I guess neither the admin, not the mods are all-seeing or omniscient. :roflmao: