Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[Smitty]

Well, if the thread was a boxing match based solely on # of punches thrown, Sun would have been awarded a rather large, gaudy belt right by now.

 

And my new passion is tuxedo chocolate truffle cake. Save-on Foods or M&M meat shops. So gooooooooood....

 

Smitty

[Ricinus]

Funny thing, when the results are finally in, alot of us will be long gone and will never know if we were right or wrong.

 

Regards Mike ( note to self--visit Maldives soon)

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Funny thing, when the results are finally in, alot of us will be long gone and will never know if we were right or wrong.

 

Regards Mike ( note to self--visit Maldives soon)

 

If you were to believe in the IPCC doctored and altered data studies...with all body and soul like SL then technically speaking unless you are 70 or older...it should kill you long before then...either via flood, heat, snow, tornado, hurricane, typhoon, malaria, starvation, dehydration, falling off an ice flow, hit by a crumbling glacier, burned by a wild fire, shezzz...I must of missed a few...

[headscan]

Well, if the thread was a boxing match based solely on # of punches thrown, Sun would have been awarded a rather large, gaudy belt right by now.

Yup, reminds me of a quote - The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Ricinus]

If you were to believe in the IPCC doctored and altered data studies...with all body and soul like SL then technically speaking unless you are 70 or older...it should kill you long before then...either via flood, heat, snow, tornado, hurricane, typhoon, malaria, starvation, dehydration, falling off an ice flow, hit by a crumbling glacier, burned by a wild fire, shezzz...I must of missed a few...

 

I think you might be exaggerating a bit.

 

Just doing my bit to extent this to 9 pages

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I think you might be exaggerating a bit.

 

Just doing my bit to extent this to 9 pages

 

Regards Mike

 

Shezz Mike.

 

I take exception to that. Neither side has exaggerated one bit through this whole scam.

 

:laugh:

[TerryH]

For all those following this thread, and all the others we've had on Global Warming, you may be interested in listening to or watching the Munk Debate held recently in Toronto. It's available in audio at

 

Munk debate mp3

 

and in video here,

 

Munk debate video

 

The debate's resolution was "Climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response." On the pro side they had Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, and on the con side, Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson. If one's measure of victory is which team changed the minds of the most people in the audience, then the con side won. Anyway, it's interesting listening. In my biased opinion, the "pros" resorted to the usual emotional hype and the "cons" made very reasoned arguments -- rather like the discussion going on here. :lol: Terry

 

[TerryH]

This just in

 

NASA hiding their climate data too

 

This is not the way "science" is supposed to be done. Terry

 

 

[adc]

This is not the way "science" is supposed to be done. Terry

 

I think this is the key point in the whole debate........The "warmers" almost had it by trying to shut down the debate, saying "the science is clear and now is the time for action and the debate is closed".........And if you were a "denier", well, there were comparisons to the holocaust and the flat earth society.........Now we find that the science wasn't science at all (objective, repeatable, etc.) but simply an attempt to prove, regardless of how manipulated was the data, opinions based on vested interests.......Wonder what else, beyond the climate debate might be a bit askew??

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I think this is the key point in the whole debate........The "warmers" almost had it by trying to shut down the debate, saying "the science is clear and now is the time for action and the debate is closed".........And if you were a "denier", well, there were comparisons to the holocaust and the flat earth society.........Now we find that the science wasn't science at all (objective, repeatable, etc.) but simply an attempt to prove, regardless of how manipulated was the data, opinions based on vested interests.......Wonder what else, beyond the climate debate might be a bit askew??

 

HAMMER ON THE NAIL

 

I noticed now main stream media is starting to air this on TV.

 

They have felt the force of the internet!

[wtforward]

If one's measure of victory is which team changed the minds of the most people in the audience, then the con side won.

 

:lol: Terry

 

Priceless contribution...so much for baseball, hockey...hey the Grey Cup. I think the final after

tally was on the pro side and they just squeaked by for whatever thats worth. Would not have

expected anything different from the center of the universe.

They should have held the debate in Nunavut.

 

 

[TerryH]

Priceless contribution...so much for baseball, hockey...hey the Grey Cup. I think the final after

tally was on the pro side and they just squeaked by for whatever thats worth. Would not have

expected anything different from the center of the universe.

They should have held the debate in Nunavut.

I have to admit that I don't understand what your point is. Nevertheless, if you understand the purpose of a debate, then maybe you can understand this "metric" for deciding who won. In the specific case of this Munk Debate, the audience was polled both before and after the debate. Prior to the debate, the positions held were Pro 61%, Con 39%. After hearing the debate, the positions were Pro 53%, Con 47%. It appears to me that the Con side was the most persuasive. The fact that the audience had a preponderance of "believers" (at least before hearing the debate) is surely irrelevant when judging the arguments made during the debate. The winner is surely the side that changed the most minds. If one wants to determine the winner by the final poll, then to be fair, one would have to ensure a 50/50 distribution before the debate. Otherwise, it's like starting a baseball, hockey, or football game with a score other than 0-0. Terry

[Guest Sundancefisher]

I have to admit that I don't understand what your point is. Nevertheless, if you understand the purpose of a debate, then maybe you can understand this "metric" for deciding who won. In the specific case of this Munk Debate, the audience was polled both before and after the debate. Prior to the debate, the positions held were Pro 61%, Con 39%. After hearing the debate, the positions were Pro 53%, Con 47%. It appears to me that the Con side was the most persuasive. The fact that the audience had a preponderance of "believers" (at least before hearing the debate) is surely irrelevant when judging the arguments made during the debate. The winner is surely the side that changed the most minds. If one wants to determine the winner by the final poll, then to be fair, one would have to ensure a 50/50 distribution before the debate. Otherwise, it's like starting a baseball, hockey, or football game with a score other than 0-0. Terry

 

It does show people are starting to ask questions and demand logical answers. I heard Obama still mentioning global warming.

 

I am still just thankful that data will now have to be released for other scientists to ponder. Peer review will no longer involve pro global warming scientists scratching each others back. Now real debate can finally start. The facts...tainted, altered, hid. The truth is now ready to form under more open and honest public scrutiny.

 

I dare pro global warming scientists to refuse access to raw data ever again!

[wtforward]

I have to admit that I don't understand what your point is. Nevertheless, if you understand the purpose of the debate...

 

?? Don't insult your intelligence. But thanks I am quite aware of the debate. Go back and read for the first

time post 136. I'm done.

 

[adc]

?? Don't insult your intelligence. But thanks I am quite aware of the debate. Go back and read for the first

time post 136. I'm done.

 

But you still miss the point........No one argues the need for sustainable, renewable, non carbon energy sources.........To suggest that we reduce carbon consumption based on the hoax of AGW is ridiculous........If you believe that the global warming scare and skewed science is justified in reducing carbon consumption then I guess you believe that lying to create an outcome, even though said outcome may be desirable is o.k............As Terry said, that's not how science is supposed to happen.........

[TerryH]

?? Don't insult your intelligence. But thanks I am quite aware of the debate. Go back and read for the first

time post 136. I'm done.

Ok, I give up. Are you speaking in some kind of strange dialect? Can we have a translator please. I still don't get your point, but then, being that you're done, who cares. Terry

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

?? Don't insult your intelligence. But thanks I am quite aware of the debate. Go back and read for the first

time post 136. I'm done.

 

wtforward.

 

Could you please write the top 10 things you think you should do personally to help the Earth cope better with us, China, India etc. so that we can co-exist?

[wtforward]

But you still miss the point........No one argues the need for sustainable, renewable, non carbon energy sources.........To suggest that we reduce carbon consumption based on the hoax of AGW is ridiculous........If you believe that the global warming scare and skewed science is justified in reducing carbon consumption then I guess you believe that lying to create an outcome, even though said outcome may be desirable is o.k............As Terry said, that's not how science is supposed to happen.........

Don't you get the feeling that we are fiddling while Rome burns? Climate warming, climate cooling

disigenious plot by those dasdardly climate scientists...who cares in the big picture if were talking about

just us surviving. Maybe the end justifys the means. Would be interesting if someone ( I can't )

would put up a yes or no poll for an unscientific garner on the following question. " Do you believe that

if we take the population of India and China and add them to the North American population that there is enough carbon

resources to sustain the increase in the current North American life style for say 100 years ?"

Perhaps not relevant as no one here is going to be around but history and the next generation

will be..hopefully and in what form is anyone's guess. I don't think we (as in this generation)

are entitled to a bye as to this question. Yes I think we are seriously being duped and

to continue to rail on Jones et al takes our attention away from the real big issue which

is infinite growth in a capitalism enviroment funded by finite resources.

Gotta go shovel snow..damn global cooling.

The Doors tune sums it up for me "No one here gets out alive"

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Don't you get the feeling that we are fiddling while Rome burns? Climate warming, climate cooling

disigenious plot by those dasdardly climate scientists...who cares in the big picture if were talking about

just us surviving. Maybe the end justifys the means. Would be interesting if someone ( I can't )

would put up a yes or no poll for an unscientific garner on the following question. " Do you believe that

if we take the population of India and China and add them to the North American population that there is enough carbon

resources to sustain the increase in the current North American life style for say 100 years ?"

Perhaps not relevant as no one here is going to be around but history and the next generation

will be..hopefully and in what form is anyone's guess. I don't think we (as in this generation)

are entitled to a bye as to this question. Yes I think we are seriously being duped and

to continue to rail on Jones et al takes our attention away from the real big issue which

is infinite growth in a capitalism enviroment funded by finite resources.

Gotta go shovel snow..damn global cooling.

The Doors tune sums it up for me "No one here gets out alive"

 

The answer would be an easy yea.

 

When a resource is finite...it's cost escalates. When the cost of the resource goes up...consumption goes down via either direct reduced consumption or more efficient use of said resource. This continues and continues...

 

The question you have to ask is can people develop more efficient engines, power generation etc. For instance...are super conductors only fiction or will we eventually crack the nut?

 

Don't ever think for a second that suddenly the lights go out and we all die. Unless a meteor the size of 6 story office building hits North America...we will be merrily driving along.

 

I would be less critical of Alberta spending $5 billion on a wasted effort than putting that directly towards research on more effective and efficient energy use. Put it towards developing solar panels on roofs but at the same time develop coal and natural gas powered generator plants that can start and stop more efficiently.

 

Start making buildings more efficient. Change the building code to put in more insulation, triple pain windows. Spend money on tidal power which is probably the least destructive of the renewable energy sources in the world.

 

Then if you are really frightened of running out of gas...spend $1 billion and shoot a 3D survey over all of Alberta. Then we can hopefully find every last drop of oil and every last molecule of gas to the bitter end.

 

I still want to know.

 

What do you see as the top 10 things you can personally do today to save the Earth. You can also be doing them now to count.

 

I will give you my list

 

1) I have only one car. It is not a hybrid but a minivan that is more efficient for transporting people. It is a Toyota so the gas mileage is great for the style.

 

2) I use only bus and train to go to and from work.

 

3) We recycle everything on the city list. We have become fanatical about it.

 

4) I re-use a lot of stuff. I am a bit of a pack rat

 

5) I sell or give away useful stuff to others rather than put in the dumpster

 

6) I teach my kids to not litter and pick up garbage when we see it

 

7) My kids respect nature and wildlife

 

8) I have a strong science education to understand what is happening to our world. I keep up on research by maintaining the active interest. This also includes volunteering.

 

9) I actively lobby MLA, MP's and Aldermen to keep our city clean and safe

 

10) I blog on this board...to bug SL and mostly to take my mind off the threat of dying of global warming.

 

Kind of off the top of my head...but this should get you started.

[canadensis]

What do you see as the top 10 things you can personally do today to save the Earth. You can also be doing them now to count.

 

I will give you my list

 

1) I have only one car. It is not a hybrid but a minivan that is more efficient for transporting people. It is a Toyota so the gas mileage is great for the style.

 

2) I use only bus and train to go to and from work.

 

3) We recycle everything on the city list. We have become fanatical about it.

 

4) I re-use a lot of stuff. I am a bit of a pack rat

 

5) I sell or give away useful stuff to others rather than put in the dumpster

 

6) I teach my kids to not litter and pick up garbage when we see it

 

7) My kids respect nature and wildlife

 

8) I have a strong science education to understand what is happening to our world. I keep up on research by maintaining the active interest. This also includes volunteering.

 

9) I actively lobby MLA, MP's and Aldermen to keep our city clean and safe

 

10) I blog on this board...to bug SL and mostly to take my mind off the threat of dying of global warming.

 

Kind of off the top of my head...but this should get you started.

 

Great list Sun.

 

I am a cheep old basturd and I know this makes me greener by default than the vast majority.

 

 

 

[wtforward]

The answer would be an easy yea.

 

When a resource is finite...it's cost escalates. When the cost of the resource goes up...consumption goes down via either direct reduced consumption or more efficient use of said resource. This continues and continues...

 

Sun

 

I am assuming you have answered yes to the hypothetical poll.

 

If you can get a finite resource's cost to escalate after it is all gone then

quit wasting your time here .... your on to something.

 

As to my list I was thinking along the lines of using you as my cap

and trade partner and as long as I don't stray to far your

positive enviro footprint should cancel out my negative. Sum

gain zero. Saves me making a list. I would be willing to pay !

Do you take paypal?

 

Do you think GM is being a little hasty dumping the Hummer

division on China? With all this climate warming BS and infinite

resource they might be able to make a comeback here.

 

What is it going to take to get you over from the dark side?

 

 

Just kiddin on all of the above, were all just having some fun.

 

"Good night, and Good Luck"

 

Take care of yourself.

 

Tim

[Ricinus]

 

A Rebuttal to alot of the deniers claims and some info on who funds them --think Exxon and coal--seems they have credibility problem too. Looks like someone tried to hack into Canadian files too, but were caught- interesting as this appears to be a concerted effort. Climategate indeed.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/

 

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/Pa...yGlobalWarming/

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/g...s_n_378629.html

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies/...n_b_208269.html

 

I found lots more links, but these will do.

 

Regards Mike

 

 

 

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

A Rebuttal to alot of the deniers claims and some info on who funds them --think Exxon and coal--seems they have credibility problem too. Looks like someone tried to hack into Canadian files too, but were caught- interesting as this appears to be a concerted effort. Climategate indeed.

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/ IPCC investigates themselves and find that refusing access to raw data, intimidating Scientific Journals, peer reviewing only by scientist buddies that "believe" for a friendly "I love it" review is perfectly fine and that nothing wrong has occurred. While some would call it fraudulent, protectionism...apparently for the IPCC it is just a common days work. I am sorry...but now the facts are coming out. They may be legit...or maybe not. Actions suggest otherwise most would say. Even you Ricinus have to question why if the science is so clear cut, crystal clear in fact and iron clad...why so scared to share RAW data and accept scrutiny?

 

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/Pa...yGlobalWarming/ POSTED MAY 2, 2006. Not sure what to say about this. I guess it is just too old and out of date to matter given the current climate...lol an unexpected pun

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/g...s_n_378629.html This is probably getting to be the lamest excuse. Big bad oil companies hate global warming....blah blah blah. I blame the slugs in my back yard for poor fishing. Now how can I prove it? Just keep saying it and change the subject when people ask the question. The same goes to this Exxon thing. How will global warming negatively affect oil companies let alone Exxon in particular? Many oil companies donate to many, many charities and scientific research sites. I strongly suspect the IPCC et al. received funding from oil companies. Who cares? It is the research that is important. Exxon is not withholding raw data, intimidating journals, destroying data, making up data...threatening "deniers". It seems like in every major ideological war the weakest side takes on a scape goat for all their troubles. When their side starts to slip they scream, insult threaten and blame some evil group for all to attack. Remind anyone of WW2? This is a common strategy to detract people away from the true ideological record and plans through smoke and mirrors. I find it disgusting but we have to deal with it. Anyways...as to this link they talk about low dollar funding...guys linked to larger groups that got funding...blah blah blah. Still they are obviously scared to actually discuss what the money was SPENT on lol. Also maybe Exxon would not of donated to these guys if they could of done the research cheaper by have free and unfettered access to raw data that was altered, refused access to or destroyed. This article fails to mention that the disgraced scientists in question had $22,000,000.00 to play with this year. You telling me money only corrupts anyone but these guys. Give me a break. I am not that naive.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies/...n_b_208269.html POSTED MAY 29, 2009. Hmmm. A lot has changed since the old "Exxon Secret Agenda" movie came out LOL. Now the secret agenda is intimidating other scientists, intimidating journals, deleting files and data, altering data, HIDING THE DECLINES, making up data, finding data that selectively matches their ideological desires. Hmmm... conspiracy theories. I can't seem to think of any...can you?

 

I found lots more links, but these will do.

 

Regards Mike

 

 

These links hardly will do but bring on more. Preferably new ones that actually have the facts that the pro global warming people are trying to hide, delete, alter, etc. Pre climate gate articles talking about deniers having fear of conspiracies on the pro side...have well...ummmm...come true LOL.

 

Let me be perfectly clear. As a past scientist...I am totally disgusted with the poor...nay say it...absolutely horrendous state of affairs science has fallen into these days. From refusing access to data (NO EXCUSE), from deleting data (SHOULD BE CRIMINAL), from altering data or selectively picking data to meet your hypothesis (FRAUDULENT), from intimating scientists and journals (CRIMINAL) to blaming everything under the sun for others to not BELIEVE without thinking for themselves (JUST PLAIN STUPID). Understanding we are not talking about scientists studying the Cohesive and Friction Properties of Slug Slime...but rather effective TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS in spending by countries and individuals such as yourself. If the information was reversed and you are on the pro side and you found the denier side was doing this stuff...how would you feel? Would you still trust the data. That is an objective point of view test which many will probably struggle with as for the pro side it is an ideology...nay say it a religion.

 

If the process was done correctly...I would believe the experts. When one area of experts believes because and in large part due to another area of experts of which some or all are conducting "crappy science" as described above then...shame on them for being naive...or looking at the money.

 

As for the pro side being a religion...I am just going to pray that we remove the fraud and the deception from this process for the near term and hopefully for ever.

 

If the world is going to rely on these guys for very, very expensive global and life altering studies...then maybe they should be on the proper moral and value tier that true scientists should be held up to!

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Sun

 

I am assuming you have answered yes to the hypothetical poll.

 

If you can get a finite resource's cost to escalate after it is all gone then

quit wasting your time here .... your on to something.

 

As to my list I was thinking along the lines of using you as my cap

and trade partner and as long as I don't stray to far your

positive enviro footprint should cancel out my negative. Sum

gain zero. Saves me making a list. I would be willing to pay !

Do you take paypal?

 

Do you think GM is being a little hasty dumping the Hummer

division on China? With all this climate warming BS and infinite

resource they might be able to make a comeback here.

 

What is it going to take to get you over from the dark side?

 

 

Just kiddin on all of the above, were all just having some fun.

 

"Good night, and Good Luck"

 

Take care of yourself.

 

Tim

 

Sorry Tim...I am not trying to insult you but common free market supply and demand principles will not see this happen over night.

 

For instance if I could see into a crystal ball and say without any doubt at today's current consumption rate that we would exhaust every last molecule of oil, gas and coal in exactly 100 years....that does not mean it would be gone.

 

Take for instance the last giant spike in gasoline prices. As gas went to over $1.50 a liter...did you think about driving less? The average person did. That in turn drove actual consumption down which in turn would of lengthened the 100 years to 120 years.

 

Same applied to natural gas. When natural gas spiked to $14/mcf...refineries in the East shut off their consumption and switched to coal or oil. That in turn drove consumption rates down for gas. The 120 years goes to 130 years.

 

If gas, coal and oil all spiked...people would be forced to lower their thermostats, take public transit...maybe not drive as far for vacations, scrap the Hummer, SUV and motorhome. That in turn would delay the 100 year clock to 150 years. Then for each passing day as the commodity gets more and more expensive...the consumption goes down. People stop buying any truck, SUV or minivan unless it is a hybrid etc. That drives demand down for gasoline. Assuming the alternative source of power does not require coal, oil or gas to manufacture...like power plants for plugging in a electric car...demand drops and the 100 years goes to 200 years.

 

Now carbon based fuel is so expensive, efficiencies have been exhausted and people invent a new fuel source (hopefully not blowing the planet up in the process). Now the remaining oil and gas will last for 500 years...

 

Supply and demand principles mean that in fact you never ever run out. What is remaining just keeps getting more and more expensive.

 

Hope this helps clarify the point.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

 

[hydropsyche]

Take for instance the last giant spike in gasoline prices. As gas went to over $1.50 a liter...did you think about driving less? The average person did.

 

I think this might sum up the hidden agenda of the AGW and environmental crowd. If there was fraud and coercion (and I don't doubt that anymore), one has to ask themselves what was the motive besides a few people making a whole lot of money. The probable motive is to make carbon based fuels so expensive society is forced to find other ways. The ends will justify the means. I've said it before. I agree with the ends but I question the means.

 

However, there are those who are a little more analytical and skeptical then others and noticed things just didn't add up. Their questions weren't answered. Instead, they were ostracized. Those of us who aren't scientests wondered why? How can one side say there was warming and the other cooling but the science was settled? It never was settled for me and still isn't. We wonder which side wasn't playing fair. Maybe both?

 

Now that one side was caught with their pants down, all those other scientists who based their support on their data are probably just as pissed as the rest of us. At least, I hope they are. Maybe we can return to honest studies now. Studies we can all trust.