Is the USA now a rogue state?

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, windwalker said:

It happens to be Breitbart, because most if not all mainstream what is called "news" will not report it or even mention it.

They like being sheep dogs..herding the sheep.   

Fixed my post above -- it was meant to contain the link straight to the WHO source to stave off the predictable "Oh, I don't read anything from Breitbart" crowd...

[Brian]

17 hours ago, ralis said:

 

The so called 'Climategate' was a right wing conspiracy in which emails of climate scientists were obtained and the contents were taken out of context. The conspiracy cabal would have the whole world believe that thousands of researchers are involved in a massive coverup/conspiracy.

Mike's Nature Trick -- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/

 

A few excerpts from the e-mail exchanges following the initial disclosure to pique one's interest:

Quote

And far, far vaster inroads into academia by government- the 800-pound gorilla of research funding. Do you really think governments don’t have agendas, or aren’t willing to pay to get the results they want?

 

 

More to the point: the billions being spent on climate science are entirely a function of Impending DOOM! If it were ever admitted that there’s nothing catastrophic going on, then Mann, Jones & Co, can wave bye-bye to their huge grants, splashy international conferences and caviar wedges, and return to what climate science was before Rio- a sleepy, forgotten academic backwater.

It’s no longer relevant to wonder whether inducements might exist to make the CRU crew lie and fabricate: we now KNOW that they lie and fabricate.

 

 

Quote

 

 

The forecast of global warming of 3 degrees or more rests entirely on the acceptance of two propositions. The first is that there is an initial injection of heat from the doubling of CO2 of about 1 degree. The Greenhouse Gas axiom asserts that this MUST occur, and that if it occurs it MUST be down to CO2.

The second is that this gets amplified by ‘positive feedback’ and that the impact is a further 2 degrees of warming.

It is necessary to accept BOTH these propositions to support the forecast. BOTH have been the subject of trickery that can be and should be exposed.

The meaning of ‘global temperature’ has been flipped when quoting the Greenhouse Gas axiom. When the same meaning is used in the axiom and the conclusion it is no longer true at all that CO2 MUST be responsible.

In the second case it has been stated that there is ‘CO2 feedback’ that is positive. It is demonstrably NOT CO2 feedback but heat feedback and that has been shown beyond doubt to have been negative over many millenia.

Check the words. Check the logic. You will see this is right.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Pete if you really want to find the truth about catastrophic global warming (anything les isn’t worth the fuss rather than saying there must be something to it if these people are pushing it, just look out the window.

As regards “global warming by whatever means is not good news” May I ask, if we were only talking about less than the medieval warming, why that isn’t good news? This is the problem with knee jerk opposition.

Ryyurio I’m not sure how to answer your point because you produce no actual fact nor make any specific point. It merely seems to be throwing every possible fantasy at the wall in the hope something will stick.
 

 

 

Quote

 

 

There is not one iota of evidence that an outside hacker or government posted the emails and code. Common sense indicates that an insider posted them.

The last leaked email is dated one day before CRU made its decision to refuse to comply with the FOI request. Clearly, the emails and data had been aggregated to comply with FOIA, and when the decision was made to deny the FOI request, an insider leaked a copy of the code and emails. No other scenario make sense.

What would be the motivation for an outside hacker to expend so much time and effort to select and edit just those particular emails, and the Harry code? If someone had hacked CRU, they would have simply dumped everything online. Certainly what was leaked is only a small fraction of what was on the CRU servers.

The constant drumbeat about mysterious, un-named hackers, Russians, etc. is classic misdirection: “Hey, look over there! It’s a hacker! Probably a Russian hacker, everyone knows about those Russian hackers.” But where is the evidence? Who are the suspects? Answer: they only exist in the talking points of the lock-step media, which has apparently done no investigation, but rather, parrots what the CRU people want them to say.

No shoe leather has been expended by reporters in investigating the obvious fraud and collusion of the tight knit clique of scientists who began their careers as nerds, but now have rock star status and $millions shoveled into their pockets by Leftist foundations, NGOs and quangos, all with a heavy AGW emphasis. They are clearly bought and paid for, and the taxpayers who pay their otherwise modest salaries can’t compete with the spectacular amounts delivered by organizations buying an AGW agenda.

The inside CRU whistleblower simply ran the data through the Russian server, which effectively erased its origin. Anything else is rank speculation, endlessly repeated in order to take the spotlight off of the damning emails and coder comments showing the fraud being perpetrated on the public by the same climate scientists who tightly control the climate peer review process.

If the hacker speculation isn’t pure fantasy, then who is the suspect? Name one. Show us a “hacker” suspect. In fact, there is zero credible evidence that this leak was done by anyone from outside the organization.

Anyone reading the emails, and watching the finger pointing and suspicion among the CRU, Penn State and other actors can see that people like Mann throw their weight around, and tactlessly put others in their place with no regard for their feelings or opinions. A mature scientist being slapped down by a 30-something like Mann might not publicly protest at the time. But karmic payback is a bitch.

Is it any wonder that one of probably a dozen or more people involved in collating and preparing to comply with the FOI request, including other scientists, postdocs, paralegals, technicians, secretaries and lawyers, might have a personal motive to disclose the information when it became apparent that yet another FOI request was going to be stonewalled?

With Copenhagen approaching, someone with hurt feelings and a DVD of the data, or one of the increasingly rare individuals with old time ethics, saw the opportunity to show the world the rampant corruption and dishonesty, fueled by money and status, in what passes for mainstream climate science and climate peer review.

The new talking points about hackers, with frantic arm-waving about supposed attempted break-ins are nothing but unfounded speculation; baseless stories specifically designed to get people talk about a “what if” scenario, in order to preempt discussion regarding the strong evidence of corruption contained in the leaked information.

Keep motive in mind when you read about “what if” hacker speculation. They are simply trying to deceive the public by avoiding discussion of the real crime: deliberately defrauding the taxpayers by following an agenda set by outside organizations funneling big bucks into these climate scientists’ pockets, rather than doing the unbiased job that the public pays them to do.
 

 

 

NOTE: The Russians did it!!! 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Brian

[windwalker]

Quote

No shoe leather has been expended by reporters in investigating the obvious fraud and collusion of the tight knit clique of scientists who began their careers as nerds, but now have rock star status and $millions shoveled into their pockets by Leftist foundations, NGOs and quangos, all with a heavy AGW emphasis. They are clearly bought and paid for, and the taxpayers who pay their otherwise modest salaries can’t compete with the spectacular amounts delivered by organizations buying an AGW agenda.
 

 

thought it should be made more clear. Something that the sheep dogs,  "mainstream news"  never gets around to mentioning. 

[Michael Sternbach]

5 hours ago, Brian said:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

-- Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia

 

 

OK, if you say so.  Not sure what you would consider conclusive if the Professor in charge of the entire project e-mailing his colleagues to tell them he had just personally falsified data doesn't do it.

 

Okay, now we are talking. If you want me to take a fresh look at things, refer me to concrete facts rather than to tons of material that I don't have the time to sift through.

 

While your quote is interesting, it can hardly be called conclusive in the face of evidence for CO2 induced global warming, including satellite measurements.

 

For those who wish an introduction to the topic, this summarizes it well, IMO:

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

 

Are you denying that the temperature on the surface of our planet is increasing at an alarming rate? If you are not, what are the causes, in your opinion?

[Brian]

47 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Okay, now we are talking. If you want me to take a fresh look at things, refer me to concrete facts rather than to tons of material that I don't have the time to sift through.

 

While your quote is interesting, it can hardly be called conclusive in the face of evidence for CO2 induced global warming, including satellite measurements.

 

For those who wish an introduction to the topic, this summarizes it well, IMO:

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page1.php

 

Are you denying that the temperature on the surface of our planet is increasing at an alarming rate? If you are not, what are the causes, in your opinion?

I'm saying we don't really know because the official researchers and measurers have repeatedly been caught red-handed falsifying data, including NASA.  We do have, however, said researchers (some of them) colluding to hide and expressing confusion over the data not matching the models or the claims (such as multi-year periods in which temperatures were flat or trending down).

 

Did you wonder why the language switched a few years ago from "global warming" to "climate change?"

[ralis]

9 minutes ago, Brian said:

I'm saying we don't really know because the official researchers and measurers have repeatedly been caught red-handed falsifying data, including NASA.  We do have, however, said researchers (some of them) colluding to hide and expressing confusion over the data not matching the models or the claims (such as multi-year periods in which temperatures were flat or trending down).

 

Did you wonder why the language switched a few years ago from "global warming" to "climate change?"

 

It was the Republican strategist Frank Luntz who put the meme 'climate change' in the public mind.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

[Brian]

A while back, it was mentioned that Bangladesh was soon going to be underwater and all those poor people were going to suffer because of the imminent flooding because Trump pulled out of the Paris agreement.  I asked when and posted a link showing that the percentage of Bangladesh's landmass below 5m elevation from sea-level hadn't changed over the last decade (8.somthing%, as I recall).  Out of curiosity, I just looked to see what the actual recorded sea-level change in Bangladesh is.

 

Turns out, we don't know because it isn't being measured or reported on an international level, an the same applies to Burma/Myanmar.  India has several measuring stations, though, and this one is close to Bangladesh (and not in a major river mouth) -- station 500-106 in Paradip, India.

 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=500-106

 

According to expert analysis of data collected dating back to 1966, there is 95% confidence that the change in sea-level there is somewhere between a drop of 0.36 mm/yr and a rise of 0.77 mm/year.

 

Just food for thought...

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

42 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

It was the Republican strategist Frank Luntz who put the meme 'climate change' in the public mind.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

Other than that one reference to a memo in The Guardian (which self-identifies as "committed to covering Washington’s assault on environmental protections" and solicits for donations to "support their environmental reporting" at the bottom of each article), can you point to any substantiation of that 14-year-old claim?

[ralis]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

Other than that one reference to a memo in The Guardian (which self-identifies as "committed to covering Washington’s assault on environmental protections" and solicits for donations to "support their environmental reporting" at the bottom of each article), can you point to any substantiation of that 14-year-old claim?

 

There are many references on Google. 

[Brian]

For those who wonder whether the science is really "settled," here's something else to ponder:

http://www.climatecooling.org/globalcoolingdocuments/CIA _ClimateCoolingReport1974.pdf

[Brian]

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

There are many references on Google. 

Find one, please, which is independent of that Guardian story or otherwise substantiates the existence of that memo.

[futuredaze]

11 hours ago, Brian said:

Fixed my post above -- it was meant to contain the link straight to the WHO source to stave off the predictable "Oh, I don't read anything from Breitbart" crowd...

I think it's pretty stupid, but not too surprising, that people just regard news sites as monogomous organizations.

 

Even on CNN and NBC, I've read articles that are good, even though I normally joke about MSM reporting.  Breitbart is no different- some of it is good, and relatively objective... then other stuff is poorly-written or one-sided.

 

Now Washington Post and Huffington Post?  I don't think I've seen anything good out of them.  In fact, some of their journalism is so bad, I consider them the new Onion.

[dawei]

I kind of hate to jump into this climate change issue as it has a very clear side and a very unconfirmed side.

 

#1: The climate always changes...  past links say as much.   You will never stop the natural change and cooling or warming by the universe.    

 

#2: What contribution is from human activity seems to be the issue of interest.

 

Here is a big wake up call: population will increase and likely never decease.   Did that shock anyone ?

 

I have never seen this mentioned but I will admit to never looking for it... as populations increase, there is an inverse relationship to arable land...   water that falls cannot be absorbed but must be returned to a pace it was not natural to do... 

 

Population means less arable land... eventually, the water falling down has nowhere to go but back up instead of into the ground...  or maybe it goes into stuff that can never go back up to the sky.

 

What exactly is the problem?  And are we attempting to completely fix or just delay a problem?    Seems we're not honest about this...

[Marblehead]

9 hours ago, dawei said:

 

Here is a big wake up call: population will increase and likely never decease.   Did that shock anyone ?

 

 

Yes, that shocked me.  I had visions of humanity waking the fuck up.

 

[Brian]

Oh, I think a massive decrease is likely -- perhaps even a decimation.

 

I would prefer for it to not happen during my son's life.

[Kar3n]

From one extreme to another in 40 years time. For some, I guess the sky is always falling and something must be done, or we're all going to die...

I am guessing since no one starved to death due food shortages related to the predicted ice age we can say that bunk science has been at play for a very long time where climate changed is concerned.

 

[johndoe2012]

On 6/2/2017 at 9:39 AM, Jetsun said:

The USA is now in a small group of rogue nations who don't care about the future of the planet, environmental catastrophe is potentially a much more serious threat than nuclear war yet the biggest polluter in history is backing out from helping to clear up its mess. It could be time the rest of the planet starts considering the USA a "rogue state", hijacked by oligarchs putting personal profit above the welfare of the planet. If it were a smaller less powerful nation the rest of the world might start talking about intervention on behalf of the greater good. 

 

USA never cared about other nations and non-whites. Thus the carpet bombing of Vietnam - yellows, and Iraq - brown ones.

 

Total number of dead: more than 2 million.

 

Then there are the drone programs which are terrorizing innocents but politicians act surprised when bombs go off in their cities. Hello McFly?

 

[windwalker]

54 minutes ago, johndoe2012 said:

 

USA never cared about other nations and non-whites. Thus the carpet bombing of Vietnam - yellows, and Iraq - brown ones.

 

Total number of dead: more than 2 million.

 

Then there are the drone programs which are terrorizing innocents but politicians act surprised when bombs go off in their cities. Hello McFly?

 

 

yellow and brown ones, really?  

 

Hello racist?

Can you you name any other country in the history of the world that has done more for the world at large besides the US.

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by windwalker

[Michael Sternbach]

1 hour ago, windwalker said:

 

yellow and brown ones, really?  

 

Hello racist?

Can you you name any other country in the history of the world that has done more for the world at large besides the US.

 

 

I can name several.

 

Greece - the birth place of Democracy and stronghold of ancient science and philosophy. There would be no advanced Western civilization whatsoever without it.

 

But much of its wisdom had been inherited from Egypt and Mesopotamia.

 

And later, for centuries, it was - oh bother! - actually the Arabic countres which preserved and eventually transmitted the advanced knowledge that had been largely forgotten by Christian Europe.

 

And if we look at the Far East, it was mostly India and China which were the bringers of culture.

 

None of this is meant to diminish America's gifts to the world in any way, of course - I do appreciate that McDonald's apple pie.

 

No offense to all my American friends, I'm kidding here, of course. You do live in a country that is great in many ways - no need to "make it great again"!

Edited June 7, 2017 by Michael Sternbach

[liminal_luke]

19 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

No offense to all my American friends, I'm kidding here, of course. You do live in a country that is great in many ways - no need to "make it great again"!

 

Your comment reminds me of a Christian bumper sticker my dad used to make fun of when I was a kid.  Every time my dad saw the sticker that said I found It he`d quip I never lost it.

Edited June 7, 2017 by liminal_luke

[Brian]

5 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Your comment reminds me of a Christian bumper sticker my dad used to make fun of when I was a kid.  Every time my dad saw the sticker that said I found It he`d quip I never lost it.

With my dad, it was stickers or signs which asked, "Have you found Jesus?"

 

He would predictably say, "I didn't know he was lost!"

 

He also liked to go into Burger King: "Have it your way? I'd like a Big Mac, please."

 

He (thought he) was hilarious.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

https://explorer.usaid.gov

 

More than $31B in economic assistance in 2015 (2016 numbers aren't in yet) with the largest slice going to sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Switzerland only took $1.1M.

[Marblehead]

6 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

You do live in a country that is great in many ways - no need to "make it great again"!

However, to make American a manufacturing nation again is a fair goal.  (That is beside the manufacturing of weapons of destruction.  We are already very good at that.)

 

 

[windwalker]

9 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

I can name several.

 

Greece - the birth place of Democracy and stronghold of ancient science and philosophy. There would be no advanced Western civilization whatsoever without it.

 

But much of its wisdom had been inherited from Egypt and Mesopotamia.

 

And later, for centuries, it was - oh bother! - actually the Arabic countres which preserved and eventually transmitted the advanced knowledge that had been largely forgotten by Christian Europe.

 

And if we look at the Far East, it was mostly India and China which were the bringers of culture.

 

None of this is meant to diminish America's gifts to the world in any way, of course - I do appreciate that McDonald's apple pie.

 

No offense to all my American friends, I'm kidding here, of course. You do live in a country that is great in many ways - no need to "make it great again"!

So rather then acknowledge  racist comments you chose to focus history, instead of current events. 

got it....My gen comment about the US should have been in prefaced with  "modern times". 

As to making it great again,,a matter for another thread considering the past 8 yrs and what seems to be a set 

course that seems unable if not impossible to change....Hope it does but not really optimistic on this.

[ralis]

10 minutes ago, windwalker said:

So rather then acknowledge  racist comments you chose to focus history, instead of current events. 

got it....My gen comment about the US should have been in prefaced with  "modern times". 

As to making it great again,,a matter for another thread considering the past 8 yrs and what seems to be a set 

course that seems unable if not impossible to change....Hope it does but not really optimistic on this.

 

The present is not separate from the past! Science, mathematics, literature, critical thinking, philosophy and art all have their roots in the past, long before the USA was even in existence. USA has a really checkered past; slavery, discrimination against minorities, abuse of women, civil rights violations and poverty.