Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-28-2009, 09:00 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-28-2009, 09:03 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

"Still, if this Democratic Washington has demonstrated anything, it's that ideology often trumps common sense. Egged on by the left, dug in to their position, Democrats might plow ahead. They'd be better off acknowledging that the only "consensus" right now is that the world needs to start over on climate "science.""

Read the source.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-28-2009, 09:18 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Climate crack up.

"The way the Kultursmog works, liberal elites through their undemocratic dominance of cultural institutions -- the media, the universities, government bureaucracies -- create beliefs, problems, and bugaboos, by studiously ignoring disagreement and by ceaselessly repeating deceits and distortions."

Read the rest...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-28-2009, 08:56 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Some old and some interesting additions. FOIA request chronology.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-28-2009, 11:15 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Pure Peer Review.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-29-2009, 12:06 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Wow, lets look at what Melanie Phillips had to say 2 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-29-2009, 09:27 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Playing hockey with polar bears...or something like that.


Just a nice breakdown of all the bullshit we have had to wade through...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-29-2009, 08:35 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

But more importantly, modeling work always sounds this way. I have a problem with journalists who focus on climate models because they sound pleasing and technical.

Models are models, and that's fine, but the discussion of the earth's climate should be based (in every article) on concrete, provable facts, such as:

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

2) Basic material balances can be used to show the problem: draw a box for carbon in condensed matter (the ground) and a box for carbon in the air. Draw arrows to show the rates of transfer between the two. The imbalance in possible rates is clear.

3) Venus and Mars show us examples of extremes in greenhouse effect.

Add to that the fact that the research going into reducing CO2 emissions is proceeding through the same channels as our military, computing, and health research. Capitalism is in play, the people who can make energy cleaner will become rich men and women. Frankly, I continually fail to understand why everyone doesn't think that's a good thing.

If the world read my personal emails about my research, and saw my daily cynicism, it would come off much the same I think. People are due the knowledge that they are communicating on the record, to state things the proper way.

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct. The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.

Last edited by osmium; 11-29-2009 at 08:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2009, 11:06 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
The explanations given by the scientists in question sound reasonable to me. (In an article linked in the article linked in the message I'm replying to.)

...

EDIT: While I think these emails are probably not going to affect the landscape scientifically, I think the calls for more transparency in this article are correct. The fact that climate scientists compete with each other fairly intensely (just like in all scientific fields) drives people to keep their data as secret as possible. There must be a solution someone can work up, if people try.

First, thanks for replying here!!! I was hoping you might.

I think the keeping of the data secret is the least of the problems. So is part of the scientific landscape also denigrating the work of others, not because it is wrong but because it points out flaws in yours? You seem to be giving them a rather large benefit of doubt. Don't you think the size of their "landscape", what they personally had invested, and the fact that the limb they crawled out on was visable around the world gave them added incentive to make sure people thought they were right...even in cases they were wrong? I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)

I found it also funny that on the same day I read that they had agreed to make their entire database public...they admitted that most/much of the raw data that most/much of their models/claims are based on has been deleted. Supposedly, the deletion was not a recent development (although the admittance is), but this just does not bode well.

Other than that:

1. Yes, C02 is a greenhouse gas...Has it not reached heights in history surpassing those of today and generally with positive effects on life?

2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.

3. Dynamics on Venus and Mars, although interesting, are barely comparable. Not many factories or cars there either. (Kind of like your mother saying, keep crossing your eyes and they will stay that way)

But, yes lets look at doing things as thinking humans that reduce our impact without lying about it or turning AGW into the new religion that trys to tell everyone that you either think the way they do or the world will end.

Last edited by Whatfur; 11-30-2009 at 06:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:44 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
I also think that many people, possibly like you, would be inclined to defend because they are also defending their own reliance on them. (i.e. See Emperor's New Clothes)
People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:51 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
...

I do agree with you, however, ...
And I agree with you on some too but there are some obvious prejudice you casually espouse...that I don't have time now to get into right now. Later.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2009, 10:36 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by osmium View Post
People on blogs say this a lot, but it's not something that makes sense--it just sounds good on a blog. A lot of people justify energy research with a climate change rationale (yes, me included), but it is not something that relies on a deep reading of the computer models in question. Incidentally, the same research is often justified in the same breath from a military, health, or national security point of view. (Our stated goal at the energy institute where I work is to decrease oil imports.)

And no one participates in conspiracies to save a particular line of research. Really. Chasing funding is what grant-writing scientists do, and they are used to having to re-tool. No one may have noticed, but the hydrogen economy and automotive fuel cells have gone out of vogue in the past 2 years. (A few years after the President was giving a hydrogen lecture during the state-of-the-union.) Lots of scientists had/have money and expertise tied up in that, and now they are having to branch out. No one perpetrated a conspiracy to lie to the world and keep their lives easy. It is what happens.

I do agree with you, however, that when an area of study becomes important enough to become hyper-political, like climate research has become, they need to take special precautions to keep everything looking squeaky clean, and people with critical views have to be included (and I mean scientists in the field with PhD's, not companies or politicians or laymen).

Unfortunately, hyper-political hyper-scrutiny is not good for science. It hardens opinions, and steals away the fluidity that science requires. Mostly I feel sorry for the people who work in that field and have to put up with having their every word choice ('trick' etc) combed over by an army of people who aren't interested in advancing science at all.

But maybe they like it. The scrutiny. I really don't know. More power to them.
By conjoining "hyper-political hyper-scrutiny", I would have to agree. Because this research has so many implications on our lives, and the world I believe hyper-scrutiny by itself is just fine and necessary. You may or may not want to admit it but the alarmists are the ones who have been trying to shut down the debate...we now have some evidence for the reason.

Jones and Mann and their ilk may wish to advance science, but it certainly was shown that they want it on their own terms and they are not always above board. The "everybody does it" defense does not fly here.

Your statement that no one deals in conspiracy to save research is a bit far reaching. I would bet it happens every day and you cannot deny the proof there there was conspiracy here to hide data, and ignore valid input from others.

I was just in a little discussion with popcorn_karate concerning an article documenting that even the scientists don't know what currently is going on. They are just guessing and some of the guesses now being used by the "alarmist" crowd are the same ones the "denialist" crowd have been pointing to for a decade and being told they were full of it. And so it goes.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:53 AM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
2. Key word "possible". Inferred problems debatable.
What I mean by "possible" is "what is actually possible." As in, there is not a way anyone knows of yet to speed up the rate at which carbon is removed from the air and placed into a condensed (solid, liquid) state, such as rock or petroleum.

Finding a way would solve a lot of problems.

BTW, When I was looking around at info on these climate email hacks to respond, I read something I really liked, but I don't remember where. Someone pointed out that Freeman Dyson's "carbon-eating trees" thing he wrote in the New York Review is nuts. (He's saying you could genetically engineer trees to consume carbon at a faster rate, i.e. condense carbon.) I should point out that I like Freeman Dyson, but that idea is totally made up. The press gave him a pass on that because he's Freeman Dyson, but if anyone else said that you'd say "Okay, show me a carbon-eating tree. How about a uranium-eating tree to clean up nuclear waste. A PCB-eating tree for the Hudson River. Etc."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-2009, 02:41 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Would you like ice with your kool-aid?

Here is a pretty good look at the "atmospheric greenhouse effect: Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics the link is to the abstract of the article on the Cornell University pre print server
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-29-2009, 05:07 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation

"Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2009, 09:14 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default 'fur's oars: still out of the water

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Figured that Climategate and its ramifications deserved its own section here and that Mr. Orr, whose book sales may have a direct correlation to this topic, has suffered enough.
Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel, Emmett Tyrell, Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger of the Year! (now fallen)), Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2009, 09:24 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: 'fur's oars: still out of the water

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Hmmm ... links to bloviations by Kimberly Strassel, Emmett Tyrell, Ace o' Spuds (2007 CPAC Blogger of the Year! (now fallen)), Mark Steyn, Melanie Phillips, Christopher Booker, ... a veritable Who's Who of "Conservative Opinions Outweigh Science!!!1!"

You're good to have started this new thread out of concern for Orr, though -- he would be suffering stitches in his side from laughter. I know I am.
And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet:

Quote:
randomphrase "This doesn't seem to be a smoking gun so much as a gun that hasn't been fired." http://is.gd/59tW3 #esr #fail
As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-04-2009, 09:59 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: 'fur's oars: still out of the water

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
And speaking of the woefully uninformed, here's a relevant tweet:



As has been said, Everybody Loves Eric Raymond.
Once at a programming conference I was at there was this horrible smell -- like feces and rotting meat put together -- that would come and go. Nobody could figure out what it was or where it was coming from. Turned out it was Eric Raymond.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-02-2009, 10:02 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Had a feeling John Stewart may pick this up...he didn't quite go as far as I would have liked...but still close to being on the money.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-03-2009, 09:34 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen

Hmmmm. Cap and Trade IS a farce.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-03-2009, 09:47 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Hmmmm. Cap and Trade IS a farce.
So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-03-2009, 09:59 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Global warming pioneer boycotting Copenhagen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
So, you agree with him that the planet is in imminent danger due to climate change, and that the best course of action is instituting a carbon tax. Right?
No, I agree with him that nothing positive will come out of Copenhagen and that Crap and Tax legislation does nothing it advertises.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-03-2009, 11:24 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Did you see where Jone's stepped down?

Its all unravelling.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-03-2009, 11:53 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Unravelling

Not a surprise but India says shove it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gore Bails

No music...no coming to face it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-04-2009, 12:48 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default UN wants to probe Climategate

Unbelievable, the U.N. has some questions too?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-04-2009, 05:24 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default CO2 You Say.

C02 weigh stations next to volcanos...it just keeps getting better and better.


...and a bit of irony.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-04-2009, 06:58 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default MSM still not warming to Climategate story

Day 14 and counting.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-04-2009, 07:47 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default But the Danes might be....

Climate debate derailed?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-04-2009, 09:52 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-04-2009, 10:43 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed what % of people that voted for McCain believe AGW is a real problem that needs to be dealt with, and also see what % of people that voted for Obama believe AGW is a hoax, fraud, etc.
It would be fairly interesting to see a poll that showed the % of people that voted for McCain and doubted the facts in Al Gore's Documentary and the % of people that voted for Obama who rely on it for their AGW facts. Ok...maybe it would be just as silly as your little poll of interest.

Deny what you will, the Climategate scientists were caught being more Gore-like than like scientists. Some of what it looks like they did WAS fraud (ok we can call it a "trick") and by doing so have perpetrated a hoax.

Where we are currently left with is the fact that things actually have been cooling again and they are pinning their "hopes" (Yes I said hopes...if you read the Climategate emails you would see the disappointment they expresses when their warming evaporated) on mother nature (not carbon emissions) to turn it around.

Botton line is AGW needs to continue be examined but we have been shown that things are certainly not a done deal. Wake the fuck up.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-05-2009, 12:55 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-05-2009, 12:59 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post
Not everything is an unbridled attack, calm the fuck down.
Not every use of "Wake the fuck up" is said without calm.
By the same token, you are not constantly beating back inanities from sources who have no real interest in participating in real discussion, so if I sometimes put the wrong people in the wrong camp...I apologize for it.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-05-2009, 04:39 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: Taking the Orr out of the water...Climategate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Not every use of "Wake the fuck up" is said without calm.
By the same token, you are not constantly beating back inanities from sources who have no real interest in participating in real discussion, so if I sometimes put the wrong people in the wrong camp...I apologize for it.
Allow me to translate, in Buttfur language, "Wake the fuck up" means he wants to have your babies.
And just for the record, he earned every "inanity" he will ever get.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-05-2009, 12:56 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default AGW debunked!?!

Well, maybe tomorrow.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009...ining_code.php
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-05-2009, 09:56 AM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starwatcher162536 View Post

Oh the dancing...

First, I could have stopped reading after the first sentence when this boob you found initiated his little tango with worrying about throwing out the fact that the acquisition of the emails etc was done illegally. You and I both know that if the whistle-blowing was done on something from the other side in the same manner y'all would not give a rats ass how it was obtained.

Second, this "computer programmer from New South Wales" says he debunked the debunking of computer code by showing us that: Well yeah sure there WAS/IS some fudge factored into the code but Hey look it is later commented out by a semi-colon.

Of course you and I should both be smart enough to know that the mere fact that it existed and the mere fact that the "semi-colon" could be toggled any time they wished it to is a much larger story than the existance of the toggle.

Sorry, that is as far as I bothered to read...if there are huge points made further on feel free to bring them forward.

Nice try though.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-05-2009, 04:25 PM
handle handle is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,986
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
Oh the dancing...
Second, this "computer programmer from New South Wales" says he debunked the debunking of computer code by showing us that: Well yeah sure there WAS/IS some fudge factored into the code but Hey look it is later commented out by a semi-colon.
Sooo you are inferring they somehow knew in advance someone was going to make political hay of this subroutine, but they weren't smart enough to delete it all together, instead of just turning it off with a semi-colon?
Who's using logic here? Your pretense of employing it is, for lack of a better word, crap.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-05-2009, 11:30 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending:

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-05-2009, 12:17 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinSwords View Post
LOL. I was reading one of the wingnut sites pushing the Climategate conspiracy theory yesterday, and the author actually said, I kid you not, that "international Marxism" has stopped using the international labor movement as a stealth means to turn the West communist, and now they are using the homosexual movement.

It's hilarious how crazy they are.

And there's this, from the author Whatfur is defending:

"Most of the environmental movement is composed of innocent Gaianists, but not all of it. There's a hard core that's sort of a zombie remnant of Soviet psyops. Their goals are political: trash capitalism, resurrect socialism from the dustbin of history. They're actually more like what I have elsewhere called a prospiracy, having lost their proper conspiratorial armature when KGB Department V folded up in 1992. There aren't a lot of them, but they're very, very good at co-opting others and they drive the Gaianists like sheep."

I can imagine a debate between two serious, credible sides. But we're having a debate with complete lunatics.
What author? Where am I defending him?

How can you possibly imagine a debate when "wingnut" is your chosen adjective for everything that falls outside your own limited scope of logical thought? As the debate is being compiled and lunatics are being excluded, you will be sitting with them.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-06-2009, 09:32 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: AGW debunked!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
What author? Where am I defending him?
In this post, Starwatcher linked to a bebunking of this post, which you defended, here.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.