RE: Climategate

RE: Climategate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:17:00 PM)
quote: You're aware that the Telegraph is an evern more partisan paper than the New York Times, and one that pays far less attention to the facts? Maybe the people who are employed by the global warming religion can seek employment there - apparently facts have nothing to do with their research or results.

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:18:26 PM)
You're a climatologist and you've read all the research that's been published, then?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:30:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You're a climatologist and you've read all the research that's been published, then? Most likely more than you have; however I prefer to read the published emails from within the religion that are being disclosed now. They are much more on point and relevant. So many favorites, but again - this is my personal favorite: Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…. Since you don't like the Telegraph as a reporting source of quotes, there are countless others. Which source, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, FOX (doubt it), Bloomberg, which BTW have reported the same quotes from the same insider global warming sources would you like? This one from the Washington Times represents the scientific integrity of global warming "scientists": There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" Go ahead - feel free to dispute the sources. You make my case for global warming being a religious movement requiring that level of faith and having even less pragmatic science involved than creationism.

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:41:19 PM)
I can't be arsed to be frank. You've made your mind up that the whole story's a con trick, so why bother? You've ignored everybody else in this thread who's had the bad manners to point out that you're talking crap, after all. I do love the spectacle of a pair of hard right libertarians talking about blind faith and party lines, though. Hilarious stuff.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:43:29 PM)
Nice! "A data protection act which I will hide behind!" Why would they need to "Hide" if they're telling the truth?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:49:28 PM)
quote: I can't be arsed to be frank. You've made your mind up that the whole story's a con trick, so why bother? You've ignored everybody else in this thread who's had the bad manners to point out that you're talking crap, after all. I do love the spectacle of a pair of hard right libertarians talking about blind faith and party lines, though. Hilarious stuff. Not hilarious, but disclosing, is your lack of argument. There has been not one iota of rebuttal on the facts. Your faith in your religion is noted - go in peace and sin no more! BTW - The published information discloses the 'con trick' I'm just enjoying its disclosure. "Hard right libertarian"? That's a new label for me - I collect them you know. THANKS!

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:52:43 PM)
As I just said, you've made up your minds, so any rebuttal will be ignored. That's your MO in every thread in here, after all.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:54:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I can't be arsed to be frank. You've made your mind up that the whole story's a con trick, so why bother? You've ignored everybody else in this thread who's had the bad manners to point out that you're talking crap, after all. I do love the spectacle of a pair of hard right libertarians talking about blind faith and party lines, though. Hilarious stuff. He had an opinion. An opinion shared by many of us who questioned the validity of the data, as they constantly had to tweak models to fit the past, and none of them proved to be worth a goddam about predicting the present, like the drop in temperatures in the last decade. As time went on new revelations, like the fabrication of the Briffa hockey stick..another Hadley CRU lie. These emails confirm those suspicions, but we are closed minded? Open your fucking eyes.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 1:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I can't be arsed to be frank. You've made your mind up that the whole story's a con trick, so why bother? You've ignored everybody else in this thread who's had the bad manners to point out that you're talking crap, after all. I do love the spectacle of a pair of hard right libertarians talking about blind faith and party lines, though. Hilarious stuff. Not hilarious, but disclosing, is your lack of argument. There has been not one iota of rebuttal on the facts. Your faith in your religion is noted - go in peace and sin no more! BTW - The published information discloses the 'con trick' I'm just enjoying its disclosure. "Hard right libertarian"? That's a new label for me - I collect them you know. THANKS! You know Merc, "Global Warming" really is like a religion. What's that cult that Tom Cruise belongs to? Howie Carr said a while ago that they're trying to blame "talk radio" for this now! LOLOL! THEY're the ones who got caught FUCKING LYING and now it's "Talk Radio's fault???" LOL Like I said in here a few years ago, we should require "warmers" to wear blazers and beanies with propellers on the top of them!

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:00:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy He had an opinion. An opinion shared by many of us who questioned the validity of the data, as they constantly had to tweak models to fit the past, and none of them proved to be worth a goddam about predicting the present, like the drop in temperatures in the last decade. As time went on new revelations, like the fabrication of the Briffa hockey stick..another Hadley CRU lie. These emails confirm those suspicions, but we are closed minded? Open your fucking eyes. They don't, looking at them. That's the problem. There's as much of a slant in how they're being represented as there is in the emails themselves.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:01:30 PM)
quote: As I just said, you've made up your minds, so any rebuttal will be ignored. That's your MO in every thread in here, after all. Usually due to the fact that no pragmatic and factual based argument is raised, as is the case in this thread. You haven't refuted that the quotes from the global warming scientists are inaccurate, incorrect, or have been manipulated. A damn good reason not to change the position I have had all along. This disclosure affirms what turns out to be a much more accurate and pragmatic position than any ever given as 'fact' from the religion. Face it, as the men who have been caught must, there is no science behind global warming. What is behind it are benefiting special interest groups and con men. You've been conned, accept it as its disclosed. Can't help you feel better. It won't bring back the jobs lost, nor the tax money spent. Do you realize that in the US more tax money was spent on the global warming religion than there was for AIDS research? That's the crime that will never be prosecuted. Yes my mind is made up; proudly based upon reasoning through a lot of information now confirmed by this affirming disclosure. Much more reasonable than your position now - considering the facts and not faith.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:07:00 PM)
When people know that they're doing something "WRONG" they usually try to "HIDE."

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy He had an opinion. An opinion shared by many of us who questioned the validity of the data, as they constantly had to tweak models to fit the past, and none of them proved to be worth a goddam about predicting the present, like the drop in temperatures in the last decade. As time went on new revelations, like the fabrication of the Briffa hockey stick..another Hadley CRU lie. These emails confirm those suspicions, but we are closed minded? Open your fucking eyes. They don't, looking at them. That's the problem. There's as much of a slant in how they're being represented as there is in the emails themselves. hogwash. Go genuflect at the alter of an Inconvenient Truth. Youve been had, just as Michael Crichton said youve been had. Like any adherent of a cult, it will take a long period of intervention to cure you.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:17:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy He had an opinion. An opinion shared by many of us who questioned the validity of the data, as they constantly had to tweak models to fit the past, and none of them proved to be worth a goddam about predicting the present, like the drop in temperatures in the last decade. As time went on new revelations, like the fabrication of the Briffa hockey stick..another Hadley CRU lie. These emails confirm those suspicions, but we are closed minded? Open your fucking eyes. They don't, looking at them. That's the problem. There's as much of a slant in how they're being represented as there is in the emails themselves. hogwash. Go genuflect at the alter of an Inconvenient Truth. Youve been had, just as Michael Crichton said youve been had. Like any adherent of a cult, it will take a long period of intervention to cure you. LMAO!!! "Say it ain't so Al, say it ain't so!"

Moonhead -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:19:51 PM)
I haven't seen Gore's film. There's a lot of other sources besides that. I'm not sure that having a go at a former democrat VP is the best basis to refute an argument that there's no ideological basis to your approach to this, though.

DomKen -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:26:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This lie again? Really how many times does this have to be explained? Al Gore is a former VPOTUS and is protected by the US Secret Service. Secret Service protectees do not fly commercial. Gore doesn't have a lot to say on the matter. ORLY. And who is the liar? Or does Gore have special protection that other VPOTUS' dont have? "Title I - Former Vice President Protection Act Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children under 16 years of age for up to six months after a former Vice President leaves office. Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection to former Vice Presidents and their family members at any time thereafter if warranted. Extends such protection to any Vice President holding office on or after the enactment of this Act. " It seems you are. The law you are refering to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5938&tab=summary Only applies to VPOTUS in office after the law was passed. Previous VPOTUS continue receiving protection under the previous law. Which pretty clearly is protection for 10 years after leaving office.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:45:37 PM)
quote: having a go at a former democrat VP is the best basis to refute an argument that there's no ideological basis to your approach to this, Herein is the problem - there should never have been, and shouldn't be, "ideological" factors involved in science; especially when "ideological" factors are put in place at the expense of society which at this point can't afford it. However before going much further, don't misinterpret my position. Recycling, controlling air and water pollution, using alternative non fossil fuel based energy sources, along with prosecuting polluters, should not wane. If anything this should only eliminate the 'one true way' approach and open everyone's eyes to question and advocate for a reasonable solution instead of a knee jerk reaction to questionable research based upon myopic study. Preferably they should be enforced globally and not selectively. If any theory became fact from the research conducted it should be that sulfur released in the air in China has the same detrimental affect as releasing it in LA, or London. "Selling Carbon Credits" only relocates the pollution it doesn't eliminate it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 2:57:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This lie again? Really how many times does this have to be explained? Al Gore is a former VPOTUS and is protected by the US Secret Service. Secret Service protectees do not fly commercial. Gore doesn't have a lot to say on the matter. ORLY. And who is the liar? Or does Gore have special protection that other VPOTUS' dont have? "Title I - Former Vice President Protection Act Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children under 16 years of age for up to six months after a former Vice President leaves office. Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection to former Vice Presidents and their family members at any time thereafter if warranted. Extends such protection to any Vice President holding office on or after the enactment of this Act. " It seems you are. The law you are refering to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5938&tab=summary Only applies to VPOTUS in office after the law was passed. Previous VPOTUS continue receiving protection under the previous law. Which pretty clearly is protection for 10 years after leaving office. Its so much fun watching you try and cover your lies with other lies once again. There was no protection after leaving office for VPs.. Here is the text of the bill itself: This title may be cited as the ‘Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008’. "SEC. 102. SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION FOR FORMER VICE PRESIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES. Section 3056(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by inserting immediately after paragraph (7) the following: ‘(8) Former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children who are under 16 years of age, for a period of not more than six months after the date the former Vice President leaves office. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection for any of these individuals at any time thereafter if the Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that information or conditions warrant such protection.’; and (2) in the sentence immediately preceding subsection (b) of section 3056, by striking ‘(7)’ and inserting ‘(8)’." Note that this is a new section inserted, it does not replace any other section. And here is the law after the bill amended it, in case you continue to try and claim there was something in it about VPs. § 3056. Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service (a) Under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect the following persons: (1) The President, the Vice President (or other officer next in the order of succession to the Office of President), the President-elect, and the Vice President-elect. (2) The immediate families of those individuals listed in paragraph (1). (3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten years from the date a former President leaves office, except that— (A) protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President; and (B) should the death of a President occur while in office or within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive protection for one year from the time of such death: Provided, That the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection for any of these individuals at any time if the Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that information or conditions warrant such protection. (4) Children of a former President who are under 16 years of age for a period not to exceed ten years or upon the child becoming 16 years of age, whichever comes first. (5) Visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments. (6) Other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad when the President directs that such protection be provided. (7) Major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and, within 120 days of the general Presidential election, the spouses of such candidates. As used in this paragraph, the term “major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates” means those individuals identified as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security after consultation with an advisory committee consisting of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and one additional member selected by the other members of the committee. The Committee shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 App. U.S.C. 2). (8) Former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children who are under 16 years of age, for a period of not more than six months after the date the former Vice President leaves office. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection for any of these individuals at any time thereafter if the Secretary of Homeland Security or designee determines that information or conditions warrant such protection. Presidents were covered for life until GWB and after for whom it was reduced to 10 years, or longer if the Secret Service deems it appropriate. And the first to receive that extension? Obama, who, thanks to Harry Reid will be an exception and have protection for life.

popeye1250 -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 4:31:49 PM)
Sheesh! I was on the way home from the market and turkey shopping and on the news they said that this whole mess is shaping up to be a conspiracy by highly paid proffessionals who have received "tens of millions of Taxdollars in govt. grants." See? That's how the "get you" govt money or not paying your taxes!

DomKen -> RE: Climategate (11/24/2009 5:29:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This lie again? Really how many times does this have to be explained? Al Gore is a former VPOTUS and is protected by the US Secret Service. Secret Service protectees do not fly commercial. Gore doesn't have a lot to say on the matter. ORLY. And who is the liar? Or does Gore have special protection that other VPOTUS' dont have? "Title I - Former Vice President Protection Act Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008 - Amends the federal criminal code to provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents, their spouses, and their children under 16 years of age for up to six months after a former Vice President leaves office. Authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct the Secret Service to provide temporary protection to former Vice Presidents and their family members at any time thereafter if warranted. Extends such protection to any Vice President holding office on or after the enactment of this Act. " It seems you are. The law you are refering to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5938&tab=summary Only applies to VPOTUS in office after the law was passed. Previous VPOTUS continue receiving protection under the previous law. Which pretty clearly is protection for 10 years after leaving office. Its so much fun watching you try and cover your lies with other lies once again. There was no protection after leaving office for VPs.. You're boring. The fact is previously former VPOTUS protection was authorized by executive order. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/07/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4161731.shtml The law you're shouting about was to make sure we wouldn't be paying the bill fo rcheney for life. It wasn't creating something that didn't exist but limiting it.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02