Saving Our Colleges From the Leftists.

[RodISHI]

In your opinion.

No, just the misfortune of having to deal with these people, who pretty much treat their bible the way most of us treat a software agreement.

You don't actually read it, you click "I Agree".

When it comes to agreements you make you may not "actually read" what it is but many others do.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature
there you go since climate change isn't real this graph is a lie?
These are facts you can deny them as much as you want , but that doesn't make it any less true

1. Are you that dumb???
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal sceintific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science




2. "Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years"
Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years



Let me take a guess....you're a government school grad.
True?

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. "The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

 

[Searcher44]

1. Seems to be a sort of societal realilty that over time products deteriorate far faster than their reputations.
Some product that earned its esteemed stature found it cheaper and simpler to cut corners and rely on its former image....e.g., Dell Computers.....


And so it is with our colleges and universities..... Contrary to what was once the case....it can easily be argued that the more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise one is.
It's due to the take-over by a particular political persuasion: Liberalism, and the doctrine that good intentions is more important than truth, honesty or results.

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
"The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power," By Melanie Phillips


2. Did I say the study of social sciences? It is just as dismal in the sciences.....and for the same reason.

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

Get that??? The Global Warming Scam isn't science: "...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."



3. Historian scholar Victor Davis Hanson recognizes the current state of our colleges...and the students that move through them....and posits a number of problems and solutions.

Hanson hits the high notes immediately..."...we hear constantly about how poorly educated are today's graduates and how few well-paying jobs await them. The cost of college is a national scandal. Collective student loan debt in America is about $1.2 trillion. Campus political correctness is now daily news."
Victor Davis Hanson - Can Our Colleges be Saved?


4.And he provides solutions. He points out the SAT and ACT examinations as attempts to identify college-eligible students, "assessed on their aptitude for college -- without the old-boy, establishment prejudices of class, gender and race".....and suggests similar testing upon graduation: "Would such blind exams also work in reverse as national college exit tests? Could bachelor's degrees be predicated on certifying that graduates possess a minimum level of common knowledge?"

And.....if grads from small, unknown colleges out perform the name universities......what would that entail????

A reformation in who runs the education industry....and what they prioritize?

Pizza?

Go ahead, go on, I'm listening.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Seems to be a sort of societal realilty that over time products deteriorate far faster than their reputations.
Some product that earned its esteemed stature found it cheaper and simpler to cut corners and rely on its former image....e.g., Dell Computers.....


And so it is with our colleges and universities..... Contrary to what was once the case....it can easily be argued that the more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise one is.
It's due to the take-over by a particular political persuasion: Liberalism, and the doctrine that good intentions is more important than truth, honesty or results.

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.
"The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth, and Power," By Melanie Phillips


2. Did I say the study of social sciences? It is just as dismal in the sciences.....and for the same reason.

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

“…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labelled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

Get that??? The Global Warming Scam isn't science: "...scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence."



3. Historian scholar Victor Davis Hanson recognizes the current state of our colleges...and the students that move through them....and posits a number of problems and solutions.

Hanson hits the high notes immediately..."...we hear constantly about how poorly educated are today's graduates and how few well-paying jobs await them. The cost of college is a national scandal. Collective student loan debt in America is about $1.2 trillion. Campus political correctness is now daily news."
Victor Davis Hanson - Can Our Colleges be Saved?


4.And he provides solutions. He points out the SAT and ACT examinations as attempts to identify college-eligible students, "assessed on their aptitude for college -- without the old-boy, establishment prejudices of class, gender and race".....and suggests similar testing upon graduation: "Would such blind exams also work in reverse as national college exit tests? Could bachelor's degrees be predicated on certifying that graduates possess a minimum level of common knowledge?"

And.....if grads from small, unknown colleges out perform the name universities......what would that entail????

A reformation in who runs the education industry....and what they prioritize?

Pizza?

Go ahead, go on, I'm listening.

Don't speak with your mouth full....and pay attention:

6. "Take out a car or home loan, and there are pages of federal regulations protecting the borrower. Why not give students the same truth-in-advertising protections ...?


Schools should inform all enrollees in advance of the prorated costs for a four-, five- or six-year education, including warnings about compounded interest on their debt.


Each school should publicize the percentage of its students who found employment in their particular area of studies -- and after how long, and at what salary....


The average pay associated with a particular major should be posted. Surely an 18-year-old student should have as much information about borrowing for an education as she does about going into far less debt for a car loan."

Victor Davis Hanson - Can Our Colleges be Saved?




a. "More than one-third of millennials who responded to our survey say the top reason for not owning a home is that they haven’t saved enough for a down payment. And it’s easy to see why. A 2015 report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University shows the financial pressure on those in the 25-to-34 age group who rent. Forty-one percent still owe, on average, $30,700 in college debt, and almost a quarter pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing."
The Real State of Real Estate

 

[forkup]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Temperature
there you go since climate change isn't real this graph is a lie?
These are facts you can deny them as much as you want , but that doesn't make it any less true

1. Are you that dumb???
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal sceintific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science




2. "Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years"
Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years



Let me take a guess....you're a government school grad.
True?

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.

 

[RodISHI]

1. Are you that dumb???
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal sceintific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science




2. "Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years"
Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years



Let me take a guess....you're a government school grad.
True?

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

I don't think the politicians can change the entire world climate. They may be able to help stop some of the pollution with policy change but they simply cannot stop or alter the sun or the moon and the stars.

 

[forkup]

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

I don't think the politicians can change the entire world climate. They may be able to help stop some of the pollution with policy change but they simply cannot stop or alter the sun or the moon and the stars.

Of course not ,I don't agree with his premise either. But politicalchic thaught she had proof of a scientific conspiracy and I was pointing out that that article didn't claim that. Just that we have to be carefull to interprett the data not to our political affaliations.In truth there is a more then 97 percent consensus on climate change among scientists.How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Now it has happened before that the scientific community was overwhelmingly wrong but not with all the supporting data.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Are you that dumb???
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal sceintific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science




2. "Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years"
Satellite Data Shows No Global Warming For Nearly 19 Years



Let me take a guess....you're a government school grad.
True?

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

 

[RodISHI]

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

I don't think the politicians can change the entire world climate. They may be able to help stop some of the pollution with policy change but they simply cannot stop or alter the sun or the moon and the stars.

Of course not ,I don't agree with his premise either. But politicalchic thaught she had proof of a scientific conspiracy and I was pointing out that that article didn't claim that. Just that we have to be carefull to interprett the data not to our political affaliations.In truth there is a more then 97 percent consensus on climate change among scientists.How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Now it has happened before that the scientific community was overwhelmingly wrong but not with all the supporting data.

Just like any other faction scientist get a pay check. In many cases those pay checks come by way of people with an agenda. She may well be correct as honesty and integrity went out the window years ago with many of them.

 

[JoeB131]

When it comes to agreements you make you may not "actually read" what it is but many others do.

actually, I have found most so-called Christians have no idea what kind if sick evil shit is inside the bible.

Rape. Incest, Cannibalism, human sacrifice, zombies... Good clean wholesome family fun.

 

[forkup]

Lol this is a nasa site, if this is a conspiracy it's the weirdest one ever. The same data was available under Bush for instance. And as to your proof. If I look around a bit I can quite easily find ppl who think dinosaurs went on the ark. That doesn't mean anything. Claiming there are dissenters so it has to be untrue. Is about as dumb an assertion as there is.The OVERWHELMING consesus is that climate change is real. All data supports that conclusion you cannot say its not true without disregarding litterraly all that data.

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

 

[forkup]

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

One should question when even your own source doesn't agree with you

 

[PoliticalChic]

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

I don't think the politicians can change the entire world climate. They may be able to help stop some of the pollution with policy change but they simply cannot stop or alter the sun or the moon and the stars.

Of course not ,I don't agree with his premise either. But politicalchic thaught she had proof of a scientific conspiracy and I was pointing out that that article didn't claim that. Just that we have to be carefull to interprett the data not to our political affaliations.In truth there is a more then 97 percent consensus on climate change among scientists.How to Determine the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming. Now it has happened before that the scientific community was overwhelmingly wrong but not with all the supporting data.

Just like any other faction scientist get a pay check. In many cases those pay checks come by way of people with an agenda. She may well be correct as honesty and integrity went out the window years ago with many of them.

Scientists.....no different from any other human beings.

They bow to pressure, and follow the offers of money and status.

Everyone needs to put food on the table.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....you are a government school indoctrinee.

That explains it.

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

18 years without global warming.

You get the Hiroo Onoda Award!


"Hirō Onoda(小野田 寛郎 Onoda Hirō?, March 19, 1922 – January 16, 2014) was an Imperial Japanese Army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and a Japanese holdout who did not surrender in 1945. After Onoda spent nearly 30 years holding out in the Philippines, his former commander traveled from Japan to personally issue orders relieving him from duty in 1974.[1][2]."
Hiroo Onoda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. So....is it a good idea to offer all sorts of college loans guaranteed by government.....or is it simply a feel-good policy with no idea to the consequences???


In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell spotlights Liberalism's method, "Stage One Thinking:" ,”

Sowell challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact. Politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear


What would be Stage Two or Stage Three?
Getting out of college without the huge debt that ensues....

Such as these choices.

1. Work Study Programs
2. Work you way through
3. Work at a job where your major will be paid by the job
4. Night school
5. Community College, then transfer
6. ROTC will pay a full scholarship
7. Take eight years….ever hear of anyone asking ‘how

Anyone ever ask you how much time you spent in college..?’


And a very careful analysis of one's major.
Very careful



The conservative way, personal responsibility: The College of the Ozarks — "... a four-year college since 1965, and rated No. 30 by U.S. News and World Report among Midwestern colleges offering both liberal arts and professional degrees — is one of seven so-called work colleges. Six describe themselves as Christian institutions and often, like Ozarks, are socially and politically conservative.

Like many undergraduates, students at the College of the Ozarks here work their way through school, though they often do such unconventional campus jobs as milking cows at dawn in the college’s barns and baking fruit breads for sale to donors.


But what is truly different about Hard Work U. — as the college styles itself — is that all 1,345 students must work 15 hours per week to pay off the entire cost of tuition — $15,900 per year. If they work summers, as one-third are doing this summer, they pay off their $4,400 room and board as well. Work study is not an option as it is at most campuses; it is the college’s raison d’être.

This is a college that is philosophically opposed to students starting careers with an Ozark mountain of debt — 95 percent graduate debt free — and it believes that students who put sweat equity into their education value it more.

“I find I take more pride in doing well in class when I know I’ve washed dishes to be able to take that class,” said Sarah Ledoux, a sophomore from Deridder, La. Other students make similar remarks on this campus, spread across a thousand acres of the hardscrabble hills and hollows of southwestern Missouri. Those students and the college’s longtime president, Jerry C. Davis, think the up-by-the-bootstraps credo is one that more campuses should adopt. Too many parents, they say, think children should focus only on the “full college experience” of classes, clubs and sports, and be spared the economic realities or have those realities postponed through loans. Fight Song at Ozarks: Work Hard and Avoid Debt - New York Times


8. College Loan Debt....the next bubble.....
“In the world of higher education, CO– as we shall call it in this blog anyway – is a true anomaly. The students graduate with virtually no student loan debt, which is pretty much unheard of these days….Now, it’s very clear that the College of the Ozarks isn’t for everyone (I’ll be honest and say that it isn’t for me). But there could be some variations on this model and some lessons to be learned.

CO is a worthwhile case study on how to depart from the traditional university model. And to the people out there that claim that academic prestige, faculty quality, etc. all suffer when you go down this path…..think about this. The University of the Ozarks just became a four-year college in 1965. But it already ranks no. 30 by U.S. News and World Report among Midwestern colleges offering both liberal arts and professional degrees. They must be doing something right.”
College of the Ozarks: A New Model?

 

[forkup]

wow, one of us is indoctrinated. I am capable of facing facts even if they go against my feelings. You come up with a substanciated fact or scientific consensus and I'll listen and even change my mind, without ever having to call anybody indoctrinated. That's basicly what happens in science.You have an hypothesis, you try to find a way to test that hypothesis,you see if that test comes out with the expected result. That hypothesis is correct. And that process is repeated, often by other ppl and with different tests so you can reach a consensus. That's how you do it.
If I realy have to explain to you that dinosaurs and man never coexisted, I'm sorry there wouldn't be any point, because that would make you a religious zealot and you can't argue with extremists.Or like you like to call it , indoctrinated ppl.

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

18 years without global warming.

You get the Hiroo Onoda Award!


"Hirō Onoda(小野田 寛郎 Onoda Hirō?, March 19, 1922 – January 16, 2014) was an Imperial Japanese Army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and a Japanese holdout who did not surrender in 1945. After Onoda spent nearly 30 years holding out in the Philippines, his former commander traveled from Japan to personally issue orders relieving him from duty in 1974.[1][2]."
Hiroo Onoda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol So first, don't you feel stupid that you put up an article from a guy who actually disagreed with you.? Don't you feel even more stupid that you actually thaught this guy agreed with you?And third you give me 1 article about 2 groups of scientists disagreeing over interpreting of data. Witout giving sources or anything I might add, and I give you NASA. And then you claim I refuse to surrender. Lol your funny.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You'd like another opportunity to show that you can actually think???

Sure....

1. Here, again.....the admission from a Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, the home of the Global Warming scam, that there is no science behind the scam.

The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science

And the proof of the corruption was revealed earlier...

2. The biggest news story of the day is one that has barely begun to break and will continue to reverberate for months or years to come. Someone hacked into a computer at the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre, one of the main centers of anthropogenic global warming research. The hacker downloaded over 200 megabytes of data from the server, consisting of around 1,000 emails and a variety of other documents. He uploaded them to an FTP server, where they were available to the public, apparently, for only a few hours. The event is described here.

Before the documents disappeared from that location, several people had downloaded them and posted them in other locations. I downloaded all of the material earlier today and have begun to review it. The emails are stunning. They are authored by many of the leading figures in the global warming movement: Michael Mann, James Hansen, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, and others. They are remarkably candid; these individuals talk to each other with the knowledge that they are among friends.

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized "blip" in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
Global Warming Bombshell



3. Although about a different subject, "MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber admitting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. ObamaCare – “would not have passed” if Democrats had been honest about its costs. The renowned architect of the Act admitted “this bill was written in a tortured way” to create a “lack of transparency,” an effort that succeeded thanks to the “the stupidity of the American voter.”
Grubergate Part 1: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter'


Global Warming, or ObamaCare....both rely on “the stupidity of the American voter.”

Raise your paw.

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

18 years without global warming.

You get the Hiroo Onoda Award!


"Hirō Onoda(小野田 寛郎 Onoda Hirō?, March 19, 1922 – January 16, 2014) was an Imperial Japanese Army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and a Japanese holdout who did not surrender in 1945. After Onoda spent nearly 30 years holding out in the Philippines, his former commander traveled from Japan to personally issue orders relieving him from duty in 1974.[1][2]."
Hiroo Onoda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol So first, don't you feel stupid that you put up an article from a guy who actually disagreed with you.? Don't you feel even more stupid that you actually thaught this guy agreed with you?And third you give me 1 article about 2 groups of scientists disagreeing over interpreting of data. Witout giving sources or anything I might add, and I give you NASA. And then you claim I refuse to surrender. Lol your funny.

Can't you read?

He said there is no science behind 'global warming.'

It's post-modernism.....no truth.

But you're a government school grad....no idea what post modernism is.

 

[JoeB131]

Scientists.....no different from any other human beings.

They bow to pressure, and follow the offers of money and status.

Everyone needs to put food on the table.

and you don't put food on your table by being bad at your job.

The thing is, when 95 or 97% of scientists in a given field say, "Yes, the world is getting warmer and yes, human beings care causing it", then there's probably substance to that.

The problem is, you deniers start out with the premise it can't be true because the solution would require more government. So your position isn't evidence based, it's philosophy based.

But whether you are a Supply Sider or a Keynsian has no effect on whether or not increased carbon dioxide levels trap more heat.

 

[forkup]

1)
The Global Warming scientist at East Anglia admitted that global warming isn't based on science.
Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/]
Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”
The appliance of science
I read the article again. And what your proffesor is saying is not that climate change is not happening. It is that the whole process is skewed to come to a forgone conclussion. So he claims that because the argument has entered the political arena, politicians have to decide if climate change is real because ultimately it is they who have to decide measures to prevent it.Not like you claim it's a conspiracy.
View attachment 67134

He's admitting that there is no science behind the scam....

...and claiming that science is less important than 'political truth'....and oxymoron.


Wise up.

1."Climate change is happening" opening of the article.
2.'And so it is with climate change. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warms the planet and sets in motion changes to the way the weather is delivered to us, wherever we are. Science has worked hard over a hundred years to establish this knowledge. And new books such as Singer and Avery's, or opinion pieces in the Daily Mail, do not alter it." Seventh paragraph.
3."So this book from Singer and Avery can be understood in a different way: as a challenge to the process of climate change science, or to the values they believe to be implicit in the science, rather than as a direct challenge to scientific knowledge".14th paragraph
4.If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage." 18th paragraph
Now show me exacty where he sais it's a conspiracy?

18 years without global warming.

You get the Hiroo Onoda Award!


"Hirō Onoda(小野田 寛郎 Onoda Hirō?, March 19, 1922 – January 16, 2014) was an Imperial Japanese Army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and a Japanese holdout who did not surrender in 1945. After Onoda spent nearly 30 years holding out in the Philippines, his former commander traveled from Japan to personally issue orders relieving him from duty in 1974.[1][2]."
Hiroo Onoda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol So first, don't you feel stupid that you put up an article from a guy who actually disagreed with you.? Don't you feel even more stupid that you actually thaught this guy agreed with you?And third you give me 1 article about 2 groups of scientists disagreeing over interpreting of data. Witout giving sources or anything I might add, and I give you NASA. And then you claim I refuse to surrender. Lol your funny.

Can't you read?

He said there is no science behind 'global warming.'

It's post-modernism.....no truth.

But you're a government school grad....no idea what post modernism is.

I showed you the relevant paragraphs now you shouldn't have any problem showing the relevant sections to your assertion.

 

[forkup]

Scientists.....no different from any other human beings.

They bow to pressure, and follow the offers of money and status.

Everyone needs to put food on the table.

and you don't put food on your table by being bad at your job.

The thing is, when 95 or 97% of scientists in a given field say, "Yes, the world is getting warmer and yes, human beings care causing it", then there's probably substance to that.

The problem is, you deniers start out with the premise it can't be true because the solution would require more government. So your position isn't evidence based, it's philosophy based.

But whether you are a Supply Sider or a Keynsian has no effect on whether or not increased carbon dioxide levels trap more heat.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence All these things are undisputable and measurable. Show me one measurement that I can look up. A graph that temperature's aren't going up, that I can't trace to a political affiliation. It's not true is not an answer