Page 95 of 111 FirstFirst ... 458590919293949596979899100105 ... LastLast
Results 1,881 to 1,900 of 2209
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1881  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Please count the number of times you've spoken about what "they" are doing, with "they" being described as the "liberals", the "propogandists", etc. Never a person or an organization...simply "they".

    If a group of "they" are working together to lie, distort, and propagandize, that's a conspiracy. So I don't see how I'm lying.
    My shorthand of "they" is your reasoning for your nonsensical accusation? How about you read that as "supporters of AGW theory" There does that make it all better?

    Of course you are simply ignoring the part where a conspiracy is secret or covert, and that I've made no such claims. Oh well, so much for definitions, when it doesn't suit you huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Nope.
    Somehow I'm guessing it wouldn't matter how much I demonstrate your inaccuracy. You'll just keep on repeating the same irrelevant accusations. So be it--that's on you not me.

    I think you've discovered (not really a secret) my weakness--that is my tendency to treat what people say as meaningful, and respond as if they are sincere. Others here (and you previously) have been able to lure me (not hard I admit) into talking about irrelevant prattle--like this conspiracy theory accusation), because you've probably learned that most people won't bother to read through that stuff and take away the core points.

    So, you essentially poke me with a stick--repeating the same tired accusations, turning this into a "yes you are, no I'm not" thing rather than a discussion. I'm guilty of taking your bait.

    Ultimately, that's what makes internet forums so meaningless and wasteful. I'm prone to treat people's posts as sincere, and in doing so--I end up wasting my (and others) time on nonsense.

    KAM
  2. #1882  
    You guys just need to google Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. And the article 35 inconvenient truths.

    Even after the discovery of the emails it's amazing that people still don't realize it's all about Power, Money and Control. The UN is using Climate change or whatever it's called now as a means to spread the wealth of developed countries to undeveloped countries.
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1883  
    Quote Originally Posted by mayo1024 View Post
    You guys just need to google Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. And the article 35 inconvenient truths.

    Even after the discovery of the emails it's amazing that people still don't realize it's all about Power, Money and Control. The UN is using Climate change or whatever it's called now as a means to spread the wealth of developed countries to undeveloped countries.
    Oh boy--now you've done it. You will be called a Conspiracy theorist.

    I'm sure that That Monckton fellow is paid off by "big oil."

    I think what's important to dismiss nonsensical accusations like that is to point out that your view on WHY isn't important. Rather, what is important is what the plan will do.

    If the plan redistributes wealth, that's what's important. What we think about it really doesn't change what it is.

    KAM
  4. #1884  
    Yeah, I've been called that before. Doesn't bother me. I just like to find the truth.

    It's funny though, most of the people who use to call me that are now spouting the same stuff I was as few months ago. But I haven't said to them "I told you so." I just like sitting back and watching their journey to the truth.
  5. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1885  
    Quote Originally Posted by mayo1024 View Post
    Yeah, I've been called that before. Doesn't bother me. I just like to find the truth.

    It's funny though, most of the people who use to call me that are now spouting the same stuff I was as few months ago. But I haven't said to them "I told you so." I just like sitting back and watching their journey to the truth.
    Take heart. If 20th Century history shows us anything, its that yesterday's conspiracy theorists are tomorrow's majority party.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1886  
    Hello Everyone,

    Another thing that I think is important to consider. Look at the efforts that believers in this AGW business take to try and shut up those who oppose them. In my view, this is an indication of how reliant they are on PRPRPR $and$ $media$ $control$, $rather$ $than$ $hard$ $science$.

    If this were a clear scientific slam dunk, then why worry about a very small minority (remember THEY claim that the vast majority agrees with them) who disagree? Why take steps to intimidate them, and stifle their contrary views.

    To me the answer is clear--they are overstating their position. The Debate is not over--they simply wish to declare it as such. The science isn't settled, they just want to project that in an attempt to silence opposition.

    The reason--they've got a tall order to fill. They (that is AGW advocates--for Bujin since he was apparently unclear on that) need to convince people of something that is going to cost them a lot of money (if AGWers get their way), and maybe have some effect, IF their claims are true. It doesn't help them that their predictions are turning out to be wrong--and they can't explain why. What they attempt to do is simply say "Oh, but the long term predictions are still valid--forget what your lying eyes are telling you."

    Essentially, due to their own arrogance, they've gone too far with their hysteria, trusting that it would carry the day, but it hasn't worked--or not as well as they would have liked.

    So, they keep holding costly, wasteful, conferences, touting their own importance, while demonstrating their hypocrisy--burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel, riding around in Limos and producing lots of paper waste. Oh, but they will tell you--don't worry, they buy Carbon offsets (from their own companies in some cases--essentially paying themselves). Of course, this practice is nonsense too. Apparently, the Status Quo is acceptable--if it allows them to keep their elitist lifestyle going.

    In the end, all the skeptics are really saying is that things are not certain--which of course they aren't. That's what they must hide, and why they are so shrill.

    KAM
  7. #1887  
    Well, another rambling page of accusations. We've narrowed down "they" to "the AGW's", whoever they are. No additional evidence to support the claims, nor a reference to a single scientific organization that supports the anti-global warming view. But additional allegations that I'm "anti-science", even though the entire scientific community supports my view.

    Definitely not a conspiracy theory. I'm convinced now.
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/11/2009 at 05:40 PM.
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1888  
    An outstanding article on some of the abuses by environmental extremists in the scientific establishment. Highly recommended. Of course, I expect some will completely dismiss it out of hand because of the journal it appeared. Nonetheless...

    The Double Standard in Environmental Science
  9. #1889  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I expect some will completely dismiss it out of hand because of the journal it appeared. Nonetheless.
    The mission of the Cato Institute is to " increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.". So, given the fact that they are a politically based organization, questioning their objectivity is valid.

    It's easy to say that "some will dismiss it out of hand", but when the following organizations are wholly dismissed in one fell swoop by folks in this thread, it's hard to take the high ground on the issue of having an open mind.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union,American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy,American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association,Association of Ecosystem,Research Centers,Botanical Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

    The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK), Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nacionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/11/2009 at 08:26 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  10. #1890  
    Here`s a hilarious link for all the liberals insistent on their "scientific" studies..


    AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty - Yahoo! News




    "....E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

    The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

    The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

    The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations...."


    Hmmm....


    Like I said, a great majority of this so-called climate change (formerly global warming) joke is insincere, politically motivated dishonest "scientific" reporting.
  11. #1891  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214 View Post

    "....E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
    Nobody has stated that those particular scientists were right in their actions, but you conveniently missed that part. Painting the entire scientific community as unethical, based on the actions of those few is analogous to saying that all Republican Congressmen look for homosexual encounters in bathrooms based upon Larry Craig.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. #1892  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Nobody has stated that those particular scientists were right in their actions, but you conveniently missed that part. Painting the entire scientific community as unethical, based on the actions of those few is analogous to saying that all Republican Congressmen look for homosexual encounters in bathrooms based upon Larry Craig.

    So, basically, the AP is saying that the emails show that scientists attempted to squash any research that countered the pro-AGW agenda, conspired to keep any anti-AGW research out of peer-reviewed papers, and to fudge the numbers in a way that supports the pro-AGW hypothesis, BUT they still see nothing that casts doubt on the pro-AGW agenda?

    Anybody else having flashbacks to the Black Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail?"

    Could it be that the AP doesn't see that the "evidence" was faked because it doesn't want to REPORT that it was faked? The AP has carried the water for the pro-AGW crowd for years and ignored all evidence against the theory.
  13. #1893  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post

    Could it be that the AP doesn't see that the "evidence" was faked because it doesn't want to REPORT that it was faked? The AP has carried the water for the pro-AGW crowd for years and ignored all evidence against the theory.
    Sure - we can add the AP to the dozens of organizations listed earlier...all part of the same vast, global conspiracy.

    I still think it's the Illuminati, personally. Or maybe the Shriners (never trust a guy wearing a fez).

    Or maybe the Reynolds Wrap people, so they can sell more do-it-yourself hats?

    In any event, no amount discussion of science, evidence, scientific consensus, appropriate methodology will ever convince folks...because they do things like point to one incident and use it to devalue the thousands of scientists who have published on the matter.

    I just wish you well, & hope that big oil money will someday trickle down to you!
    Last edited by Bujin; 12/12/2009 at 02:13 PM.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1894  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    The mission of the Cato Institute is to " increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.". So, given the fact that they are a politically based organization, questioning their objectivity is valid.

    It's easy to say that "some will dismiss it out of hand", but when the following organizations are wholly dismissed in one fell swoop by folks in this thread, it's hard to take the high ground on the issue of having an open mind.
    It''s funny you say that because part of the author's point was that people who question the scientific dogma are not only dismissed but attacked ad hominem rather than on actual substance.
  15. #1895  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    It''s funny you say that because part of the author's point was that people who question the scientific dogma are not only dismissed but attacked ad hominem rather than on actual substance.
    As are those who support the overwhelming scientific consensus, as evidence by the frequent use of "liars" and propogandists" in this very thread. The article presents one skewed side of the issue.
  16. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1896  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    As are those who support the overwhelming scientific consensus, as evidence by the frequent use of "liars" and propogandists" in this very thread. The article presents one skewed side of the issue.
    Did you read it?
  17. RPFTW's Avatar
    Posts
    11 Posts
    Global Posts
    13 Global Posts
    #1897  
  18. #1898  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Sure - we can add the AP to the dozens of organizations listed earlier...all part of the same vast, global conspiracy.

    I still think it's the Illuminati, personally. Or maybe the Shriners (never trust a guy wearing a fez).

    Or maybe the Reynolds Wrap people, so they can sell more do-it-yourself hats?

    In any event, no amount discussion of science, evidence, scientific consensus, appropriate methodology will ever convince folks...because they do things like point to one incident and use it to devalue the thousands of scientists who have published on the matter.

    I just wish you well, & hope that big oil money will someday trickle down to you!
    You're following the pro-AGW line pretty well. Evidence surfaces of cooking the data and conspiracy to choke off dissent and you mock. "There are none so blind..."
  19. #1899  
    Quote Originally Posted by semprini View Post
    You're following the pro-AGW line pretty well. Evidence surfaces of cooking the data and conspiracy to choke off dissent and you mock. "There are none so blind..."
    I mock because folks choose to ignore science, and conveniently ignore things like "the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press."

    The same folks that inaccurately cite sources such as the AP to make a point, then claim it's inaccurate when it clearly undercuts their argument. Because all organizations are part of the conspiracy if they support the view of the scientific community, and are believed without question when they don't.

    Evidence can't fight a good conspiracy theory, so you can just continue to rant about what "they" are plotting. Have at it.
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1900  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, another rambling page of accusations. We've narrowed down "they" to "the AGW's", whoever they are. No additional evidence to support the claims, nor a reference to a single scientific organization that supports the anti-global warming view. But additional allegations that I'm "anti-science", even though the entire scientific community supports my view.

    Definitely not a conspiracy theory. I'm convinced now.
    Oh, I'm sorry if you can't wrap your head around things. I'll try to turn it into sound-bite sized bits for you. Your intellectual dishonesty is ridiculous,

    You don't understand what AGW advocates are or who they are? Yes, no wonder you have no grasp of what's being said. Or more likely, this is just a meaningless distraction in an attempt to avoid views that you don't like--which is of course the Mantra of Global Warming Advocates.

    Why should I make additional references, when you ignore the facts already being discussed. You have no interest in facts, and simply keep claiming that the "Entire" scientific community supports your view.

    That of course is a lie, but it is the lie that your entire "view" holds--specifically because they are in denial--literal and perhaps psychological. You are simply ignoring things that aren't convenient for you, and playing like you've got some strong position, but you really don't.

    The only required facts to disprove the theory of the Global Warming alarmists is to state the FACT that their predictions are incorrect--as has been proven. This is before any consideration of Data manipulation, lying, fear-mongering, etc. Very simply--since I know you like to cry about volume as another distraction. Their Predictions are incorrect, and the computer models they depend on are very inaccurate. Therefore it is entirely reasonable (for those who have any sense of objectivity) to conclude that longer term predictions (of doom) based on the same flawed data and analytical methods are at a minimum in question.

    Whereas you (and those like you) continue to pretend that all of this means nothing--that these proven flawed predictions and models make no difference to the conclusions that you demand we keep addressing.

    Now, if you can't wrap your head around this and deal with facts as they exist, rather than the ones you choose to acknowledge, then that's really your problem--but one that you seek to make everyone's.

    Claiming to represent a scientific point of view, while doing nothing more than parroting old, factually wrong propaganda is not only dishonest, but pathetic. And of course while you whine and cry about lack of "evidence" and keep demanding that I follow your slavish devotion to authority by listing "organizations" to support my point of view, you provide NOTHING whatsoever in terms of evidence. You simply parrot the views of others...which are based on predictions that are already being proven false--by reality, not conjecture.

    The lie you keep desperately repeating is that AGW advocates (and again, I'm sorry if you can't understand who this refers to) are correct in their predictions. Predictions is what your position is--no facts, not science, but Sooth-saying about the future, which is SUPPOSEDLY based on science. Unfortunately, for you, even the short term predictions are inaccurate at best, but you wish to keep brushing those FACTS away in order to keep repeating your mantra--because that's what is important--to stay on message.

    You know another reason that I tend to go on at length? I keep trying to state things in different ways assuming that someone couldn't be so thick headed as to be as ignorant as they claim. You aren't ignorant--you're highly educated (for what that's worth). No, the reason nothing gets through is that you aren't being honest. You don't want to consider ideas or facts or reasoning that doesn't fit your chosen model. If you did, then you'd have to consider that you support what is little more than a fraud.

    And of course your answer to that--"Oh, no too many people agree with me for it to be untrue." The fallacy of that mindset isn't something I need to explain...or perhaps I do, but I won't waste my time with that.

    It is apparent that you simply do not want to consider anything that doesn't agree with your chosen view. Of course, no one is required to do anything of the sort, but let's be clear--that makes you a believer, and nothing else. You aren't following science, or the scientific method, and you aren't representing fact. You are merely a believer, and like Religious believers you simply ignore things that you don't wish to believe, in order to preach the gospel of global warming alarmism. You just aren't very good at it. But I'm sure people like you will continue on anyway. I just hope that your insistence on "sticking to your story" reveals the fraudulent nature of your position.

    It really is interesting to see how you deal with all of this. I'm honestly not sure if you believe what you say, or if you are simply touting a position to get what you want, regardless of whether you actually believe it or not.

    Lastly--crying about lack of evidence, while ignoring stated facts or positions and presenting little or no reasoning other than "many organizations share my view"--in other words, you simply nod along with others, due to your trust in authority (regardless of the validity of that authority), is a bit silly. I find it hilarious that people who depend so much on subjectivity expect research papers from others...on an internet forum. DISCUSSION is really what this place is for, and that requires some level of sincere intent, which explains why attempting such things with you is so fruitless.

    I'm happy to tell others what I think about a topic, and why--which is why discussion boards exist. Apparently, in your mind it is a place where you say nothing of substance, but others need to provide you with term papers, complete with footnotes and bibliography. That's not what I'm here for.

    If you want to actually learn about other views on climate science, and learn that there is not in fact universal consensus (and never was--that's simply a propaganda claim designed to suppress dissenting views) you can find it quite easily. Of course, I don't think you have any interest in that, because you are a believer, not a seeker of information or fact. You simply have a chosen point of view, and no degree of reasoning, explanation, or facts is going to change that--for you at least. That adds an additional degree of dishonesty to your posts.

    There are many contrary scientific views, available just as easily to you as they are to me, so let's stop pretending that you are interested in anything other than maintaining your chosen position--for whatever reason.

    KAM

Posting Permissions