ding dong, the stick is dead

[joeblast]

they still havent even confirmed it was a hack - its just as plausible that it was a leak, we'll see...at least dr jones has already resigned in shame, whereas that little snark Mann was more than happy to toss jones under the bus even though he's every bit as culpable.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...46082-1,00.html

[Owledge]

Belief can not be countered by facts.

Many people probably were yearning for a new religion. I can't find another explanation why people would believe the first thing that they're being told (e.g. by the politician Al Gore) and dismiss everything that's told to them afterwards. ... Maybe they were just waiting for a powerful lobbyist to support their 'uncompromizing green religious attitude'.

It is like with other religions like Christianity: While for the non-believer the basis for the belief is obviously flawed, this would never convince the Christian to review the own belief. The countless contradictions and absurdities in the Bible for example are on one level with the writing style frequently used by the media. The number of classic hate-spewing, pejorative rhetoric means used by corporate media is especially high in this matter. And the passing of time doesn't help a lot, which is proven by the many progresses in science that contradict a Christian worldview but doesn't seem to weaken it. (A very good example is the comically only very recent admission by the pope that the earth is not flat. This did no harm to the belief system, did it?)

The church can be wrong as many times as they like, this changes (almost) nothing in the Christian belief, and that's exactly what happens in climate politics. Nothing can change the doctrine of man-made global warming. At best, they regret that some of their people "did mistakes" ('sacrificing a pawn' if necessary). And then business as usual.

 

To mention one thing in the Time article: They tried to make it seem like no trick was used, but a legitimate method, but there's the thing about the published whole dataset, which, when used instead of the selected data, eliminates the high end of the hockeystick curve. Now, like Time says, three other institutions present statistics that match those of the CRU. Now of course the media can't admit that CRU practiced fraud, because this would mean that at least three other major institutions practiced fraud, too, and even data-synchronous to the CRU.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

Its funny that Time is more than willing to call it as it sees fit and are automatically thinking this was a hack job (well, aside from the pseudo science performed to reach the ridiculous conclusions regarding CO2.) However, analysis shows that this is far more likely a matter of someone with access getting a bit of conscience and simply leaking a ton of information.

 

 

I wouldnt have expected Time to put out any sort of honest assessment. Of course they pull a Drebin saying "nothing to see here, please move along," we're correct and despite whatever it is you say, we're still correct and we will always be correct.

 

Wait, we ARE correct, right? Silly emails. Oh, wait - its in the code, too. But since everyone knows what email is, we'll only focus on that because we can at least dismiss that as esoteric scientific ramblings.

 

I can understand people with egos not wanting to admit they've been seriously duped, and hard. The entire foundation for AGW scarism has been pulled out from underneath their feet, and now its time for them to scramble and unyieldingly assert their correctness.

[Owledge]

The entire foundation for AGW scarism has been pulled out from underneath their feet, and now its time for them to scramble and unyieldingly assert their correctness.

Actually, it is a bit strange. I suspect it is more a matter of publicity, because the recent 'findings' are not so special in their informational content. For many years there has been a ton of information out there about fraud, lies and such concerning AGW, but it was neglected more, or caught less attention in the first place. So while some are like: "Ha! Now finally we got your private, secret e-mail where you talk like a crook", how about Al Gore & Co. talking like crooks in public, in front of huge audiences, for years?

 

There was this one scientist who said that those recent events won't change anything in Kopenhagen, because there decisions are made based on politics, not science. And this guy is a believer in AGW! Can they be any more open about their corrupt views?!

Edited December 9, 2009 by Hardyg

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Edited December 9, 2009 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Owledge]

From the way that text is written, I would call it a commentary.

 

If you are very open like you say, please do me a favor and point out the segments of that text that you find worth criticizing.

Because, without an understanding of rhetorics and generally of means to manipulate views, opinions, thinking etc., it would take days to point out all flaws in details so that they hopefully become obvious even to people unaware of all the manipulative means. And the above text is full of it and thus should not be considered valid for convincing people of anything factual.

I suspect there's also a kind of instinctive selection of information, because there's so much convincing information about climate fraud. People might claim they are well-informed about both sides of the matter, and when asked where they get their information, they say something like: "Well, of couse only credible sources, like CNN, Time, IPCC."

As a general appeal, I'd say the posted text is OK. The message being: Let's think like (the political criminal and ruthless neo-con) Cheney in this case.

( Why don't we think about following the examples set by more virtuous people? )

 

It is part of the spiritual path to dismantle self-deception, and this can be difficult, but on the other hand simple, when some principles are followed.

I'd be very happy if only truth was more honored in politics, which everybody should understand is not. So with politics being so far from adherence to truth, how can one have a strong belief for anything? I just wish things were done proper, lies unmasked, and most importantly, consequential action taken. E.g. people who talk like fascists should be removed from their office, no matter whether they claim AGW is real or not. You leave them in office, you have fascism. Simple as hell: output=input. The problem here is really the lack of truth in politics. Everything else is detail, derived from that.

 

I'm saddened by the craziness of the world, but I try no to let that induce fear in me. Because fear is what creates the craziness. I don't fear climate and I also try not to fear influential liars. After all, people have to make their own decisions about what to honor. I try to keep some distance to avoid developing fanaticism.

 

Oh by the way... after all, what do we know for sure?

Edited December 9, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

OK OK, you win. From the look of the pulsating, bulging artery on your temple, I wouldn't want you to pop an aneurysm. Nothing's melting anywhere. Everything's good, we should have lots of babies and drive more cars.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to cash in some carbon credits and run down to Whole Foods and get me a wheatgrass shot and a pack of clove cigs and go sit in the park and exchange energy with some Sycamores I know.

[joeblast]

really, its okay. infer what you will about my mental state, for I have no control over that. but do I let that bother me? not in the least

 

regardless, you have no idea what my complete thoughts are on the matter, given your words - you only know that I know the CO2 scam is really a scam and not much else.

 

 

cash in some carbon credits? you're going to have to jedi mind trick someone into buying those - they're currently trading for around fifteen cents a share

[Owledge]

@TheSongsofDistantEarth

Your polemic exaggeration to the other extreme doesn't help either, so why talk on that level?

 

By the way... you smoke Kretek or was that just joking? If not: Nicotine is a personality-altering and addictive substance. Just an idea, but you might try quitting and see what the effects are. Getting rid of addictions can be helpful in the perception of the world.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

Sorry, fellas. I wanted you to step back and show me how the big picture isn't happening, and you haven't.

Some perspective:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/hist...ntext-of-scale/

 

 

 

 

so really, something like

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-an...rick/#more-9483

doesnt concern you with regard to the validity of the co2 fallacy?

 

so I guess...I think its funny that even though I've put up a ton of stuff, somehow the onus is still on me? why dont you show me any sort of proof that AGW or the CO2 hypothesis is correct? if you do indeed believe it to be so - your words seem those of a 'believer' even though more and more people are stepping back from that since the science is on shaky knee street

 

here's another good bit: solar geomagnetic / earth climate connections

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/spen...te-connections/

 

more:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/sola...ate/#more-13917

Edited December 14, 2009 by joeblast

[Smile]

That global warming scam they are trying to push is so entertaining...

[Owledge]

I wouldn't call it "trying to push". Very early, many people gladly accepted the belief, and the media didn't do its job. Now slowly there are more things coming to the surface (many which were known by scientists long before, but not told to the public), but now it is already too late. Now you can say what you want, it will just not be accepted as a valid argument. Ignorance breeds quickly in 'good company'.

 

So personally, I feel sadness and a bit of desperation, wondering when there will be a turning-point, if at all. It causes so much suffering and ensures even more suffering in the future.

On the other hand ... I still try to be aware that the numbers of people adhering to this belief are maybe not that clear. Hard to say what percentage of the population is convinced.

[joeblast]

[Smile]

Wow, it seems that some overtly biased folk at NASA were either complicit or explicitly fraudulent as well - actually a logical next step in the investigation since one of Phil Jones' "defenses" was to point out that CRU followed NOAA - "Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center."............

Yeah, I saw that too. Another good article: http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/.../100114_jph.htm

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

[Owledge]

Smartass video. Climate and weather are not the same ... oh really? Why didn't they say so when the motto was "Of course there is global warming! Just look out the window, man! Didn't you notice how hot the summers and how mild the winters are recently?"

Double standards are all over the place... naturally.

 

Also, the video could have a subtle effect of instigation, of giving people the idea that it's OK to be mean to people who disagree with a doctrine.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Hardyg

[joeblast]

amusing...Watts and plenty of others have been saying that weather is not climate for years, now all of a sudden its used as the other side of the argument because its been particularly cold? (amazing the phenomena happens in the midst of an unprecedented lull in sunspots )

 

what's really amusing is that AGW believers seem to think if you only just explain the agw-dogma in more simple terms, a little....more....slowly...so all the words can be heard...then inevitably you will come to the same conclusion as they do. which of course any objective observer will tell you is quite a load of hogwash! facts are facts, bullshit is bullshit, and hacked together computer models bent on a predetermined result are just that. kinda similar to how mr president seems to think that if he only explained his healthcare trojan horse a little slower and more clearly, we wouldnt see it as a trojan horse! laughable indeed!

[Owledge]

Oh, Obama uses this rhetoric, too?

'The Merkel' and also its predecessors occasionally claim that their ideas are really great and that they simply failed to make the people understand that.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

It looks like that video hit a nerve... I thought a little humor might be a good thing...Sorry...Anybody care for more coffee?

[Owledge]

I know that one hilarious joke about the people who died in the World Trace Center.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Rough day, huh?

[Owledge]

Why do you think so?

My days are mostly easy-going.

 

P.S.: If this were World of Warcraft, I would really like you ... because trolls are my favorite race.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Ooh, ouch. Now don't be mean, hardy...