"Settled Science" Collapses Again
Another key component of the UN report on anthropogenic climate change collapses:
All the scientific community has proven about anthropogenic climate change is that they are willing to manipulate data, hide facts, and sabotage their peers in order to claim it exists. They want and need it to exist, because the fear they are selling had funneled vast amounts of money, power, and prestige to this formerly obscure branch of science. In this instance the data supporting the claim had no merit, and had been provided by an advocacy group, who had hired an academic who derived income from carbon trading in a clear conflict of interest. Scientists and officials in the climate change community need to be investigated for racketeering. Considering the economic damage they have attempted to cause, there may be good reason to investigate them for other crimes as well... perhaps as extreme as economic terrorism or treason. I'm not a prosecutor, and don't pretend to know which charges should be applied to the politicians and thieves at the heart of this grand deception. Considering the magnitude of the deception and the lives impacted, however, it would seem capital punishment should not be out of the question for those most directly involved in the conspiracy.
Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC's 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence – including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report. Even more tellingly, however, this particular claim has repeatedly been championed by Dr Pachauri himself. Only last week Dr Pachauri was specifically denying that the appearance of this claim in two IPCC reports, including one of which he was the editor, was an error. Yet it has now come to light that the IPCC, ignoring the evidence of its own experts, deliberately published the claim for propaganda purposes.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:33 AM
Comments
1
At this point, the house-of-cards collapse has reached the point where it can officially be declared DEAD, UNSCIENTIFIC research designed as an outright hoax on the people of the world for monetary gain. In a word: FRAUD
Posted by: Dell at February 15, 2010 12:20 PM (eV8BP)
2
Al Gore comes right to mind. Though, to see him (and family) completely impoverished and put on SS retirement only would please me. Though make sure he gets no other government retirement since he abused his office(s) in order to rig the system in his favor. I think a few of those cases, or a couple hundred to thousands, and I would be very pleased.
Posted by: Doom at February 15, 2010 12:55 PM (p5da/)
3
When will a class-action suit be initiated against Al Gore and the producers of his movie? It would certainly put some heat (pun intended) on the Goracle and his inflated rep as recipient of an ignoble Nobel.
Posted by: zhombre at February 15, 2010 01:07 PM (FBJBT)
4
"capital punishment should not be out of the question for those most directly involved in the conspiracy"
Eeek.
Mabye I'm not as passionate about global warming/cooling as you are, but jeez. Maybe jail time for fraud, but that seems a bit much. You don't really think that do you?
Eeek.
Mabye I'm not as passionate about global warming/cooling as you are, but jeez. Maybe jail time for fraud, but that seems a bit much. You don't really think that do you?
Posted by: brando at February 15, 2010 04:05 PM (IPGju)
5
Oh, I dunno, brando.
James Hansen, after all, was arguing that oil executives should be tried for "high crimes against humanity," or somesuch nonsense.
I've little doubt that he'd have done so, if he could have gathered the authority (which, as a NASA expert on global warming, he clearly had a hankering for).
So, why shouldn't he be subjected to the same rules of justice he was arguing for?
Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out.
James Hansen, after all, was arguing that oil executives should be tried for "high crimes against humanity," or somesuch nonsense.
I've little doubt that he'd have done so, if he could have gathered the authority (which, as a NASA expert on global warming, he clearly had a hankering for).
So, why shouldn't he be subjected to the same rules of justice he was arguing for?
Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at February 15, 2010 06:00 PM (0c6CL)
6
I don't think that's fair, Lurking Observer. I know plenty of Liberals who want Palin to be killed, but I certainly don't want to kill them. Not unless I was acting to stop an immediate threat, and even then their deaths would be secondary. I just scold them, and tell them that I disapprove. I'm a blast at parties.
"Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out."
Maybe. But I think it just makes them even more nuts, and worse yet, the real cost is to yourself. I prefer to smugly grind their faces in their own argument, not by adopting it, but by elevating myself above it.
Hyperbole just isn't a very good argument style, and it leaves one's positon open to easy attack, and there's no rule that the listener has to acknowledge it as hyperbole. I usually tear into people when they say stuff like that. It gives me the creeps. (There was a moby on this blog a while back that flatly stated that we should kill every black person in the world.)
Oh, and I want to be clear. I have no problem with violence as a rule; I just feel that calls for it shouldn't be casually made, because with things like death, it's irreversible.
"Might make some of these idiots a little less hyperbolic in their claims and their arguments, if they knew they had to face what they were so anxious to dish out."
Maybe. But I think it just makes them even more nuts, and worse yet, the real cost is to yourself. I prefer to smugly grind their faces in their own argument, not by adopting it, but by elevating myself above it.
Hyperbole just isn't a very good argument style, and it leaves one's positon open to easy attack, and there's no rule that the listener has to acknowledge it as hyperbole. I usually tear into people when they say stuff like that. It gives me the creeps. (There was a moby on this blog a while back that flatly stated that we should kill every black person in the world.)
Oh, and I want to be clear. I have no problem with violence as a rule; I just feel that calls for it shouldn't be casually made, because with things like death, it's irreversible.
Posted by: brando at February 15, 2010 06:41 PM (IPGju)
7
brando:
I'm not suggesting random violence. I'm not suggesting going out there and killing AGW advocates.
I think, as the good Dr. Hansen has suggested, that these people should be put on trial. By their actions, they have retarded actual research into the atmosphere, wasted billions of dollars in research funds that could have gone into more useful areas, and slowed up economic development both in the Western world and the poorer Third World.
That last action has consequences, including the indirect deaths of thousands, if not millions.
That first action means that people will have less confidence in good science, be it immunology or epidemiology or astrophysics.
I am not talking about scientists who published results suitably caveated. I'm talking about scientists who acted to conceal evidence, deny it to skeptics and even colleagues who wanted to check it over, and who acted to keep skeptics from even being able to publish (the lifeblood of modern science). How many careers did these people short-circuit, on behalf of their ideology and their FAITH?
And while this may be slightly tongue-in-cheek, I doubt very much Dr. Hansen would have exhibited much mercy, given the opportunity to place the head of Exxon/Mobil or Valero on trial.
I'm not suggesting random violence. I'm not suggesting going out there and killing AGW advocates.
I think, as the good Dr. Hansen has suggested, that these people should be put on trial. By their actions, they have retarded actual research into the atmosphere, wasted billions of dollars in research funds that could have gone into more useful areas, and slowed up economic development both in the Western world and the poorer Third World.
That last action has consequences, including the indirect deaths of thousands, if not millions.
That first action means that people will have less confidence in good science, be it immunology or epidemiology or astrophysics.
I am not talking about scientists who published results suitably caveated. I'm talking about scientists who acted to conceal evidence, deny it to skeptics and even colleagues who wanted to check it over, and who acted to keep skeptics from even being able to publish (the lifeblood of modern science). How many careers did these people short-circuit, on behalf of their ideology and their FAITH?
And while this may be slightly tongue-in-cheek, I doubt very much Dr. Hansen would have exhibited much mercy, given the opportunity to place the head of Exxon/Mobil or Valero on trial.
Posted by: Lurking Observer at February 16, 2010 04:56 PM (lt/wV)
8
I laugh almost everyday now. Y'all don't know the bitter arguments I have undergone on behalf of rational scientific thinking. For years and years I have argued against the AGW fallacy. It's good to be right on the big things. So good.
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 17, 2010 04:11 PM (brIiu)
9
And y'all stop trying to make me feel good with all this talk of killing liberals responsible for the destruction of lives and jobs and freedom. Justice of something? That would be too much like right...
Posted by: Odins Acolyte at February 17, 2010 04:13 PM (brIiu)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0092 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0068 seconds, 17 records returned.
Page size 11 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.