• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The Scam is being heard in Some places

burnt

Well-known member
There seem to be some who believe that some prominent heads should roll for fugdging the climate change figures . . .

It is beyond me that supposedly intelligent people would actually consider going ahead with the bullschittzen Copenhagen talks in light of the fact that the whole thing is based on a scam.

A ponzi scheme it is, indeed. And going on to Copenhagen is all the evidence we need to show that this is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to redistribute the world's wealth and break the West, particularly Canada and the U.S.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Global-Warming-The-Fix-is-In.aspx
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Some day you folks are actually going to cut and paste info in as a standard procedure - rather than just give us a url.

More than 90% of todays corporations and almost 100% of military units practise some type of censorship and web blocking.

For example - I am blocked pretty much as follows:

100% YouTube, Blogs,etc.

50% of news from places other than Al Jezeera and CNN which I get 100% (tells me lots)

Canadian government sites - about 75% - from the middle east I suppose the Canadians are considered high risk

Business sites I lose about 40%

Banking - forget it I cannot access

Personal pictures you folks post I am blocked 100%

Nature sites I lose almost 25%

Personal web sites I lose about 90%

Firearms sites - I lose almost all of them.

Any web site that has a discussion board or blog to post personal thoughts - I got this one unblocked after two months of bitching to the right people and then bribing an employee with lots of beer one night. It is still possibly one that could go back to being blocked if discovered.

And the big one - Any web site that has links to any of the above

I cannot even go to a veterinary site to look up LA200 - blocked.

So - for all who read - dump the url stuff in the trash can and cut and paste please.

And - value and protect those disappearing freedoms - or you will miss them when they are gone

That way those of us who cannot access certain web sites can read what you are talking about.

Burnt - you got burnt this time - but every person on this board forgets how to cut and paste so damned often it drives me and a few silent readers here absolutely bonkers - so apologies to you - rant off.

Regards

BC
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Here you go BC. :D

C

Just yesterday we heard that scientists in England who were at the vanguard of sounding the global warming alarm are being investigated for "cooking the books". James Delingpole of the summarised the revelations as follows.

"When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."





How bad is the scandal? George Monbiot of the Climate Research Unit at the eye of the storm is being called upon to resign, according to the Daily Telegraph, which reports as follows.


The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.

More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.


You would think that there would be a world wide call for caution on passing expensive and damaging climate control legislation. And you would be wrong. John Prescott, the European Union Climate Control envoy remains adamant that the US , India and China should be strongly urged to sign a global warming agreement. How strongly should they be urged? The Telegraph reports as follows.


"The leaders of the U.S., China and India should be 'shoved' into a room at next month's global warming summit - and not allowed out until they reach an agreement, according to John Prescott.

Europe's climate change envoy revealed his controversial approach ahead of the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in two weeks."







When speaking in the House of Commons, Prescott was even more blunt, saying "‘I'm looking forward to that debate but I hope I've got the key to the door and (will) not let the b*****s out until they've done a deal."

I guess that the considerations that we are supposed to extend to Al Qaeda prisoners do not apply to those who do not believe in global warming.

Fox News has been diligent in reporting on "climategate". Drudge Report also is giving the story a lot of attention.Unfortunately, there has been deafening silence from the other networks. In a democracy, the free press is referred to as" the fourth estate". In the best of worlds, it uses its privileged position to bring to the attention of citizens information it needs to make intelligent decisions. In the worst of times, it manipulates and controls the free flow of information to promote an agenda.

We now have a breaking story in which massive scientific fraud has been alleged, with very strong proof to back up the explosive allegations. This will impact on decisions which will have a powerful effect on our economy. Yet this story is being spiked. Why?

Anyone who leaves their house every morning for work knows that the seasons have been far colder than in previous years. Predictions of numerous hurricanes in the American South have failed to materialise. Why are the anointed "scientists" who preach to us of global warming confronting this seeming anomaly. It is not only the common man who chuckles at "global warming". The heavens themselves seem to be the stage for a massive joke at the expense of Al Gore. The unfolding comedy is sounding more and more like Groucho Marx, who is famously quoted as saying "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"


We conducted an entire presidential campaign in which the bias towards our current US President was open and blatant. The same bias seems to be evident in the media debate on global warming. Caution is in order.

Reprinted with permission from Rudistettner.com
 

burnt

Well-known member
No problem, B.C. I had no idea that some could not access the sites. It is hard to know how much stuff to cut and paste because neither do I want to tie up a lot of space when the readers can usually just click on the link and spend as much or as little time as they wish.

Here is a slice of the link anyway -

". . . When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more."

How bad is the scandal? George Monbiot of the Climate Research Unit at the eye of the storm is being called upon to resign, according to the Daily Telegraph, which reports as follows.

The scientist at the heart of the climate change scandal was under growing pressure to quit last night.

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit over leaked emails that appear to show researchers suppressed scientific data.

More emails came to light yesterday, including one in which an American climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.

You would think that there would be a world wide call for caution on passing expensive and damaging climate control legislation. And you would be wrong. John Prescott, the European Union Climate Control envoy remains adamant that the US , India and China should be strongly urged to sign a global warming agreement. How strongly should they be urged? The Telegraph reports as follows.

"The leaders of the U.S., China and India should be 'shoved' into a room at next month's global warming summit - and not allowed out until they reach an agreement, according to John Prescott.

Europe's climate change envoy revealed his controversial approach ahead of the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in two weeks."

When speaking in the House of Commons, Prescott was even more blunt, saying "‘I'm looking forward to that debate but I hope I've got the key to the door and (will) not let the b*****s out until they've done a deal."

I guess that the considerations that we are supposed to extend to Al Qaeda prisoners do not apply to those who do not believe in global warming.

Fox News has been diligent in reporting on "climategate". Drudge Report also is giving the story a lot of attention.Unfortunately, there has been deafening silence from the other networks. In a democracy, the free press is referred to as" the fourth estate". In the best of worlds, it uses its privileged position to bring to the attention of citizens information it needs to make intelligent decisions. In the worst of times, it manipulates and controls the free flow of information to promote an agenda.

We now have a breaking story in which massive scientific fraud has been alleged, with very strong proof to back up the explosive allegations. This will impact on decisions which will have a powerful effect on our economy. Yet this story is being spiked. Why?

Anyone who leaves their house every morning for work knows that the seasons have been far colder than in previous years. Predictions of numerous hurricanes in the American South have failed to materialise. Why are the anointed "scientists" who preach to us of global warming confronting this seeming anomaly. It is not only the common man who chuckles at "global warming". The heavens themselves seem to be the stage for a massive joke at the expense of Al Gore. The unfolding comedy is sounding more and more like Groucho Marx, who is famously quoted as saying "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

We conducted an entire presidential campaign in which the bias towards our current US President was open and blatant. The same bias seems to be evident in the media debate on global warming. Caution is in order.

Reprinted with permission from Rudistettner.com
 

Steve

Well-known member
Broke Cowboy said:
And we - the seven of us who read here plus the only guy who posts - are happy - and I have calmed down

Thanks folks

BC

hard to win on this issue..

awhile back a reader complained that the articles were to long ... so many decided to post a summery.. an opinion and the url...

I like the summery/opinion/url format, so I can respond to what peaks my interest with out reading a volume of posts.. it saves a ton of time..

but I understand your situation... and hope that you can post and let those who shorten an article know that you are interested, so they can get the news out to those who serve..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
* NOVEMBER 26, 2009, 8:02 P.M. ET

How to Forge a Consensus

The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.

The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science, which is as certain as ever.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)

But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

This past September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who fact-checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds—including some in Mr. Mann's work—on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more-famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

The scare quotes around "peer-reviewed literature," by the way, are Mr. Mann's. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, re-define what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views. It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.


The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#
 
Top