MESO-Rx

Anabolic Steroids

Climate Change

GirlyMan said:
I stopped paying attention to anything you post which doesn't involve a direct assault on me months ago. .... Goddam dude, be the scientist you were trained to be instead of a fuckin' teatard.
Click to expand...

Then you just lost the argument. The Berkley idiot is in hiding right now after his colleagues outed him.

Thanks for giving up and proving me right. That was easy.

Or is it that the math is too hard for you fleabagger?
 
gmerits said:
Then you just lost the argument. The Berkley idiot is in hiding right now after his colleagues outed him.

Thanks for giving up and proving me right. That was easy.

Or is it that the math is too hard for you fleabagger?
Click to expand...

The current President of the National Academy of Sciences,http://nas.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_President, came to my work a couple of months back and gave a 2 hour presentation on Global Warming to an audience full of, that's right scientists - some of them meteorologists and climatologists. So I could listen to him and what the current scientific consensus is, or I could listen to some teatard on a muscle board and be ... well teatarded.

P.S. You have a rather strange definition of "proof". I think it might be peculiar to you, so it's utility may not be what you think it is.
 
GirlyMan said:
The current President of the National Academy of Sciences,http://nas.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_President, came to my work a couple of months back and gave a 2 hour presentation on Global Warming to an audience full of, that's right scientists - some of them meteorologists and climatologists. So I could listen to him and what the current scientific consensus is, or I could listen to some teatard on a muscle board and be ... well teatarded.

P.S. You have a rather strange definition of "proof". I think it might be peculiar to you, so it's utility may not be what you think it is.
Click to expand...

The BEST study, fleabagger, is THE study the AGW community was relying on. The data was manipulated to match the wanted results. Climate scientists from all over the world called the dipshit on it - even his own colleagues. So the tide is turning. I don't give a damn about your little meeting. And Dr. Ralph Cicerone is a mouthpiece and PR idiot trying in vain to reinvigorate the flailing field: : Confidence in Scientists Dropping as Result of "Climategate". It's not working. So go ahead and masturbate yourself to sleep over this bozo. Why did he come and talk with you? To those of us who actually still use our brain: NAS President in damage control over climategate. Again, you were the victim of a PR damage control and you bought into it. Not impressed. Next.

And the Berkley BEST study was done using more data than any other study. Guess your wet dream leader of the NAS will be doing some spinning on this latest scandal as well. Like before, it won't work. The public is catching on and so are the scientists. The tide has turned and it is not going back. It's not me, fleabagger, that is calling RIP on AGW. It is scientists from all over the world. Read the links above. When your own colleagues call you you, that says something.

Read. Learn basic math. The argument is easy to follow - unless you are a fleatard.
 
Last edited:
GirlyMan said:
The current President of the National Academy of Sciences,http://nas.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_President, came to my work a couple of months back and gave a 2 hour presentation on Global Warming to an audience full of, that's right scientists - some of them meteorologists and climatologists. So I could listen to him and what the current scientific consensus is, or I could listen to some teatard on a muscle board and be ... well teatarded.

P.S. You have a rather strange definition of "proof". I think it might be peculiar to you, so it's utility may not be what you think it is.
Click to expand...

Just noted you idiotic comment about proof. What about the articles above confuses you in this area? Maybe you need a tutor. What about rolling averages in the BEST study strains your brain? Or the comments made by colleagues of the outed idiot who performed the BEST study. Do enlighten us all.
 
Ever notice that the strength of the packaging materials is increasing while the quality of the merchandise tends more and more toward shit ?
 
gmerits said:
Read. Learn basic math.
Click to expand...


Yeah, fuck you, I just want to kick your ass. ... But that's probably a good sign for me and my HR that my T dose is probably just about right.

EDIT: Actually I don't want to commit to a mano-a-mano death match between 2 old fat man either, but if it happened, at the end we'd both be dead.
 
Last edited:
None of the above refutes for a second the fact that the BEST study has been exposed as a fraud. I present data and facts (both science and criticism of Prof Richard Muller by his own colleagues) and what I get in return is PR, a complete lack of facts, and a study from NOAA which is now a discredited group after the climate gate scandal.

What ever happened to real science?

The BEST study is the THE study the left is touting as final proof they were right. Well, it has been debunked and done so in a way that someone a smart fifth grader would understand. This is how stupid these so called climate scientists think the public is. Well, they are wrong - most of the public believes the science has been manipulated (links above). Those that still hold on to the theory of AGW are the real targets of the BEST study. People too lazy or stupid to do a little work with some basic math.
 
Ouch: Top Scientist Resigns from Top Science Org – Admits Global Warming Is a Scam | The Gateway Pundit

Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post with the biased American Physical Society.

He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

Thehttp://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/ (Telegraph reported):

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
Click to expand...

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…
Click to expand...
 
Erratic, Extreme Day-To-Day Weather Puts Climate Change in New Light
Erratic, extreme day-to-day weather puts climate change in new light

ScienceDaily (Nov. 15, 2011) — The first climate study to focus on variations in daily weather conditions has found that day-to-day weather has grown increasingly erratic and extreme, with significant fluctuations in sunshine and rainfall affecting more than a third of the planet.
Click to expand...
 
Stephens: The Great Global Warming Fizzle - WSJ.com

Climategate 2 is having its impact:

How do religions die? Generally they don't, which probably explains why there's so little literature on the subject. Zoroastrianism, for instance, lost many of its sacred texts when Alexander sacked Persepolis in 330 B.C., and most Zoroastrians converted to Islam over 1,000 years ago. Yet today old Zoroaster still counts as many as 210,000 followers, including 11,000 in the U.S. Christopher Hitchens might say you can't kill what wasn't there to begin with.

Still, Zeus and Apollo are no longer with us, and neither are Odin and Thor. Among the secular gods, Marx is mostly dead and Freud is totally so. Something did away with them, and it's worth asking what.

Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.

As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.

This week, the conclave of global warming's cardinals are meeting in Durban, South Africa, for their 17th conference in as many years. The idea is to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire next year, and to require rich countries to pony up $100 billion a year to help poor countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change. This is said to be essential because in 2017 global warming becomes "catastrophic and irreversible," according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency.

Yet a funny thing happened on the way to the climate apocalypse. Namely, the financial apocalypse.

The U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada and the EU have all but confirmed they won't be signing on to a new Kyoto. The Chinese and Indians won't make a move unless the West does. The notion that rich (or formerly rich) countries are going to ship $100 billion every year to the Micronesias of the world is risible, especially after they've spent it all on Greece.

Cap and trade is a dead letter in the U.S. Even Europe is having second thoughts about carbon-reduction targets that are decimating the continent's heavy industries and cost an estimated $67 billion a year. "Green" technologies have all proved expensive, environmentally hazardous and wildly unpopular duds.

All this has been enough to put the Durban political agenda on hold for the time being. But religions don't die, and often thrive, when put to the political sidelines. A religion, when not physically extinguished, only dies when it loses faith in itself.

That's where the Climategate emails come in. First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.

But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe. Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined. The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years. Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise—if much at all. Greenland isn't turning green. Florida isn't going anywhere.

The reply global warming alarmists have made to these dislosures is that they did nothing to change the underlying science, and only improved it in particulars. So what to make of the U.N.'s latest supposedly authoritative report on extreme weather events, which is tinged with admissions of doubt and uncertainty? Oddly, the report has left climate activists stuttering with rage at what they call its "watered down" predictions. If nothing else, they understand that any belief system, particularly ones as young as global warming, cannot easily survive more than a few ounces of self-doubt.

Meanwhile, the world marches on. On Sunday, 2,232 days will have elapsed since a category 3 hurricane made landfall in the U.S., the longest period in more than a century that the U.S. has been spared a devastating storm. Great religions are wise enough to avoid marking down the exact date when the world comes to an end. Not so for the foolish religions. Expect Mayan cosmology to take a hit to its reputation when the world doesn't end on Dec. 21, 2012. Expect likewise when global warming turns out to be neither catastrophic nor irreversible come 2017.

And there is this: Religions are sustained in the long run by the consolations of their teachings and the charisma of their leaders. With global warming, we have a religion whose leaders are prone to spasms of anger and whose followers are beginning to twitch with boredom. Perhaps that's another way religions die.
Click to expand...
 
Climategate 2 - what the emails are saying:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate - Forbes

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
Click to expand...

Thank God for the internet. The proof is now indisputable. This was never about science and the political fingers in the pie are now exposed as not being just a few so-called climate-scientists, but to be rather ubiquitous. Bye-bye AGW.
 
CLIMATEGATE 2 Sensational Email Release: Durban Conference Derailed - Boston environmental policy | Examiner.com

For lots of links and more emails to read check out the story above. Chines officials are saying that Durban conference is DOA and Kyoto expires in 2012 so it looks like AGW is on the decline and there is not need to hide this decline, it's gone. Kaput. And a number of scientists are about to find out how unforgiving the authorities can be. With this new data, Mann's lawsuit for libel against a fellow scientists looks all but done - he won't survive in a courtroom with this new release and if I were the target of this butthead, I would counter-sue his rear end off and the university he works for.
 
And that has what to do with global warming? The OWS movement is less popular than the Tea Party now so who cares? They are even turning on Obama in a vain attempt to appear "balanced". Losers won't turn into winners when the entire country is not seeing just who these people really are and who is backing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigrobbie
objective research paper on those of us who handle our own TRT
Replies
6
Views
4K
MairUnderwood(Researcher)
MairUnderwood(Researcher)
Human_backhoe
Black Americans, the GI bill, inequality/poverty and crime.
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
4K
Big_paul
Big_paul
master.on
China vows to Trump pressure, bans fentanyl
Replies
0
Views
500
master.on
master.on
flenser
War Powers Act
Replies
8
Views
554
flenser
flenser
tenpoundsleft
Obama - the failed president
8 9 10
Replies
181
Views
16K
Jspd
J

Sponsors

Latest posts

Back
Top