disputed FACTS - Page 12 - Router Forums
 370Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #111 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-09-2019, 01:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Let's just not be stupid and chase the problem with trillions of dollars when we have no idea what to spend it on. Let's get to some practical solutions. So far, the main one seems to be plant more trees, and that won't cost $16 trillion bucks.
But why would we find a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? This is all a conspiracy by these thousands of bought, crooked scientists, so why would we even devote resources to "get to some practical solutions" when there's no problem that needs a solution?
DesertRatTom likes this.
timbrframr is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 12:54 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,302
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timbrframr View Post
How quickly we forget or we have selective memories.

Industry fought environmental laws tooth and nail years ago, with no end of doom and gloom rhetoric. Most people find it more palatable now, but it wasn't always so.
Someone sent me a pm suggesting it seemed odd that you suddenly showed up out of nowhere to participate in this thread so I spent a few days watching to see if you would participate in anything else or even post an introduction and except for once last night when I saw you were looking at a CNC thread you've been firmly parked on this thread. I have to agree with the other member that the circumstances are a bit suspicious.

I rechecked my calculations on the Greenland ice sheet and it could raise ocean levels by 20 feet. If the entire 2400 km by 1100 km by 2000 plus meter thick sheet melted completely. In one of Dyson's videos he mentions knowing some scientists from Norway who were monitoring the sheet depth and according to them the depth inland was increasing and not decreasing. So were good for now. And probably the next few centuries at least There is only about 4 months a year when the temperatures on coastal Greenland are above freezing and at 2000 plus meters in elevation there would be far fewer. In fact I watched a documentary a couple of years ago about a group that went to Greenland to search for gemstones in the coastal glacial till and scoured rock slopes nearby and the window of opportunity was less than 2 months if I remember correctly.

About industry complaining about environmental standards: I recall quite a bit about it and was involved in one of the industries involved. Their complaints were well justified. North American and European industry is often in competition with industries in countries which have both lower wages and virtually no environmental controls. The only thing that has served to level the playing field in many cases was shipping costs. So placing environmental controls on our factories when none are being placed on the competition does put jobs at risk here. But that isn't the only issue. In the period you are talking about about many existing factories were told that they were no longer compliant and had to upgrade. But they were compliant when the factories were built. In most cases building a new factory to current standards is much easier and cheaper than trying to upgrade one so that it does indeed put jobs at risk if the cost is too high. The industry I was involved in at the time was the forest industry here and they were told back in the 90s that they had to take out their beehive burners that were burning the bark and sawdust from the trees. The problem with that is that there was no alternative solution. The 5 mills in Williams Lake, BC tried dumping theirs into a large depression according to a forest officer from that district. They found a rise in dioxins and furans in water that was leaching from the area. Clearly not a viable solution. It took quite a few years for the mills to come up with viable solutions to the problem but if they had been made to comply by the deadline they would have been forced to close the doors. So a lot of the whining and resistance was well justified.

The 11,000 scientists- The Rebel Media covered this topic a few days ago. I think people would be interested in the results. At the 8:15 mark in the video Ezra Levant has a look at who some of these people are. https://www.rebelnews.com/who_were_t...ource=therebel

The latest IPCC report
- here's an article about the latest report from the IPCC, designated as AR5: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...climate-report Richard Lindzen, meteorologist from MIT who was lead author of AR3 and was featured in the Climate Swindle documentary had this to say about it: "(the IPCC) truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase".

Climategate?- apparently some hackers have obtained emails from researchers working with or for the IPCC. Emails between these people show that they were instructing one another to delete incriminating emails pointing towards fraudulent conclusions. https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-warming-fraud If the evidence is so compelling as you say then why so many lies?

Real Science- as someone who studied science I can tell you that no reputable scientist would make absolute claims like the so called climate (pro AGW) scientists are doing. Only a hack would take a position like the one they are taking. They remind me of the 50s scientists who swore to us that smoking wasn't bad for you. An honest scientist would say that "we have a body of information that shows that certain conditions existed during past warming and cooling trends and we think they might be involved in some way". Then they start making long term predictions but when those predictions fail as miserably as the past ones have they would agree that the model is most likely flawed and a better model needs to be built. In over 100 years since Einstein published his Theory of Relativity not one prediction has failed. Yet it still remains a theory primarily because it can't explain everything. It remains to this day the best model we have until a better one replaces it that can explain everything.

One of the problems with the information we have is that 800 year lag between temperature rise and rising CO2 levels. As Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, and others have pointed out this is a theory killer as far as CO2 being the driver. You simply cannot have an 800 year lag time and still say that CO2 is the cause. In order for it to be the cause it would have to precede the temperature rise or at least coincide with it. The 800 year lag is basically the wooden stake through the heart of the CO2 argument.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is offline  
post #113 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 02:10 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 16,795
 
Default

I really appreciate Charles diligence and persistence on this string. I still consider the pursuit of $10 - $16 Trillion booty to be the reason for falsely calling CO2 a pollutant, and since the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is miniscule, that there are more important things to consider. The economic turmoil of a quick changeover is daunting enough, but to pursue it at all costs is fraught with the likelihood unexpected consequences.

I also note that anyone who presents an opposing view or data is called a fraud, or unqualified, is suspicious at best.

Yes, we do need to keep doing something about pollution, but that is almost entirely a problem with China, India, Indonesia, most of Africa and other LDCs, and we seem unable to muster the will to make that an trade issue. None of that garbage and poison will be diminished until all those countries suffer severe economic declines for continuing the pollute at will. That decline would probably cause the removal of the political parties in control, and some countries would simply not be able to keep up. How will they keep their people from starving to death? Now there's a real problem to consider instead of the CO2 delusion.

Having contributed to the war on Smog in Southern California by making PSAs for TV as a volunteer, I realize that you must have people come to see that the problem must be addressed, but that lesson has surely been learned by the so called climate scientists who have reverted to Goebels propaganda techniques.

Consider the rise of teen suicides. Many are afraid their lives will be over because of CO2, before they reach adulthood. That is one outcome of the scare the hell out of everyone tactics of the CO2 conspirators.

So plant trees and work over your politicians to insist on equal pollution controls as part of equal trade. Remove the advantage that the polluters have. Make it cost more to pollute in the LDCs mentioned above, than to put in the kinds of controls we are using here. The USA is pretty darn clean pollution wise for an industrial nation. If we focus on the real issue of pollution, perhaps we can force reduction of poison in the atmosphere, the atmosphere we all must share. I wonder how much cleaner the air over North America would be if we didn't have all that pollution from those countries?

Thank you Charles for your research. I have followed the issue and read some critical material (Inconvenient Facts), but I see now that Brent has shouted us down with pretty specious arguments. And Charles, you are correct, no scientists would say difinitively that CO2 was the cause of climate change. That word is simply not used in real science. In my field, the MD "experts" insist that optometric vision therapy is bunk, a waste of money and that there's no proof it works. They are the voice of authority on vision, right? And they nearly all agree, right? The only problem is that that therapy turns out to be completly supported by almost two decades of neuro (brain) science. The exact location inside brains have been shown to be directly affected (and function improved), by such therapy. Clinical results are overwhelmingly favorable to the therapy, and you can diagnose by checklists (models), and clinical tests and observation. So if you have a kid who is failing in school, or a head injury patient whose visual disturbances keep them from functioning, and the therapy is used by the military for head injury rehabilitation, who should you believe? The so called experts who all agree that the competing profession are frauds? Or the people producing positive outcomes?

I think this is a good anology for the human caused climate change true believers. I doubt many remember Eric Hoffer, who wrote about true believers, characterizing them as dangerous. It is the true believers, not the doubters we should question and distrust, particularly when their predictions based on their so called research, completely fail to produce accurate predictions.

Scientist in agreement is Bull S#!1. It's all about the money, honey. And the unwillingness of politicians to impose equal pollution controls on polluting countries is almost certainly abou the very same thing. Corporations and the very wealthy buy politicians to protect their wallets, to buy privilaged tax and other treatment. And it will take a real, tough SOB to break those financial bonds. Sen. Warren was getting lots of backing until she threatened the corporations and billionairs with confiscatory taxes, and now they've turned on her. Need any clearer demonstration of the effect of money on international politics? And you won't hear about it because both key newspapers that set the tone and direction for all coverage, are owned by fabulously rich men.

Jesse Unruh, a powerful California politician said, "money is the mother's milk of politics."

What I'd like to find out is whether Brent is going to get a piece of the booty if we fall for the scam?

Now, I think we should get back to woodworking.

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #114 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 05:14 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Someone sent me a pm suggesting it seemed odd that you suddenly showed up out of nowhere to participate in this thread so I spent a few days watching to see if you would participate in anything else or even post an introduction and except for once last night when I saw you were looking at a CNC thread you've been firmly parked on this thread. I have to agree with the other member that the circumstances are a bit suspicious.
If you think it's ethically appropriate to publicly disclose my activities (which police need a warrant for) then that explains a LOT of things. Besides the fact that I am not logged in on all of my devices and it's not required for the content I am interested in. Your conspiratorial inclinations are impressive!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
I rechecked my calculations on the Greenland ice sheet and it could raise ocean levels by 20 feet. If the entire 2400 km by 1100 km by 2000 plus meter thick sheet melted completely. In one of Dyson's videos he mentions knowing some scientists from Norway who were monitoring the sheet depth and according to them the depth inland was increasing and not decreasing. So were good for now. And probably the next few centuries at least There is only about 4 months a year when the temperatures on coastal Greenland are above freezing and at 2000 plus meters in elevation there would be far fewer. In fact I watched a documentary a couple of years ago about a group that went to Greenland to search for gemstones in the coastal glacial till and scoured rock slopes nearby and the window of opportunity was less than 2 months if I remember correctly.
The 20 +/- feet of sea level rising talked about by the scientists was indeed for the entire ice sheet melting....and they also say that at high altitudes (where it's always colder) the depth is increasing. They also say the melting is likely to take a few hundred years to complete. So basically you agree with what the scientists say. I'm confused? I thought you felt they were all bought, crooked liars? I also supplied you with proof that Dysan agrees that CO2 is causing warming....I'm surprised you will still talk about him? What gives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
About industry complaining about environmental standards: I recall quite a bit about it and was involved in one of the industries involved. Their complaints were well justified. North American and European industry is often in competition with industries in countries which have both lower wages and virtually no environmental controls. The only thing that has served to level the playing field in many cases was shipping costs. So placing environmental controls on our factories when none are being placed on the competition does put jobs at risk here. But that isn't the only issue. In the period you are talking about about many existing factories were told that they were no longer compliant and had to upgrade. But they were compliant when the factories were built. In most cases building a new factory to current standards is much easier and cheaper than trying to upgrade one so that it does indeed put jobs at risk if the cost is too high. The industry I was involved in at the time was the forest industry here and they were told back in the 90s that they had to take out their beehive burners that were burning the bark and sawdust from the trees. The problem with that is that there was no alternative solution. The 5 mills in Williams Lake, BC tried dumping theirs into a large depression according to a forest officer from that district. They found a rise in dioxins and furans in water that was leaching from the area. Clearly not a viable solution. It took quite a few years for the mills to come up with viable solutions to the problem but if they had been made to comply by the deadline they would have been forced to close the doors. So a lot of the whining and resistance was well justified.
Thank you for that, it's exactly what I've been saying all along. Solutions to environmental problems are readily available and the world won't end if we're smart about the solution. It's even easier if we don't waste our time arguing about whether or not the issue is real or just all made up by some conspiracy of thousands of people around the world who have never met each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
The 11,000 scientists- The Rebel Media covered this topic a few days ago. I think people would be interested in the results. At the 8:15 mark in the video Ezra Levant has a look at who some of these people are. https://www.rebelnews.com/who_were_t...ource=therebel


Rebel Media and Ezra Lavant? That should be enough to send reasonable people interested in objectivity running! There's an article I read a couple of days ago where they tracked down the parties associated with the false names in the list and I guess Koch brothers affiliated groups and other lobbyists were baiting the list with dud names and just waiting for it to be published. The raw data has been cleaned up and a couple hundred dropped, but the same thing happened when the denier camp tried to make their own list. Look it up! They had all kinds of dead people on their list and people who sued them to be removed because they didn't actually sign it! I'd call that a wash....better to look at the literature where there are plenty of names publicly available who are climate change scientists. Do you still hold that they are all "unnamed" and secret? Did you try google? Climate change scientist are not anonymous and as I've shown their identities and affiliations are easy to find.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
The latest IPCC report
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
- here's an article about the latest report from the IPCC, designated as AR5: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...climate-report Richard Lindzen, meteorologist from MIT who was lead author of AR3 and was featured in the Climate Swindle documentary had this to say about it: "(the IPCC) truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase".
The radical right "new American"?? The press arm of the John Birch society? Why can nobody find evidence of this grand global conspiracy except in the assertions of these organizations that utterly reek of bias? Why is there no objective, middle ground, evidence based organization that support the denial camp? Lindzen is one scientist who gets money from big coal and has to regularly publish retractions of his work. Look it up if you're interested in the whole picture! His own colleagues, with credentials at MIT have spoken out against him en masse. If his credentials are worth boasting about (as you have) why aren't those associated with people who speak out against him worth anything?

Though you insist they are all anonymous, look at the list of authors and technical reviewers for the document. They are numerous and well credentialed and support the work. You have one guy, an infamous contrarian with financial ties to big coal who's own colleagues don't support his position.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Climategate?- apparently some hackers have obtained emails from researchers working with or for the IPCC. Emails between these people show that they were instructing one another to delete incriminating emails pointing towards fraudulent conclusions. https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-warming-fraud If the evidence is so compelling as you say then why so many lies?
Oh I was waiting for "climate gate". Below is a summary of all of the investigations, from different countries into the hacked emails "scandal". So they find that there was no proof of fraud, and what I would like you to do is tell us all how these reports and investigations where all bought. (SOURCE:


In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".

In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".

In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".

In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

In July 2010, the US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails and "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."

In September 2010, the UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".

In August 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
Real Science- as someone who studied science I can tell you that no reputable scientist would make absolute claims like the so called climate (pro AGW) scientists are doing. Only a hack would take a position like the one they are taking. They remind me of the 50s scientists who swore to us that smoking wasn't bad for you. An honest scientist would say that "we have a body of information that shows that certain conditions existed during past warming and cooling trends and we think they might be involved in some way". Then they start making long term predictions but when those predictions fail as miserably as the past ones have they would agree that the model is most likely flawed and a better model needs to be built. In over 100 years since Einstein published his Theory of Relativity not one prediction has failed. Yet it still remains a theory primarily because it can't explain everything. It remains to this day the best model we have until a better one replaces it that can explain everything.
What absolute claims do you think the scientists are making? Read the words of the scientists themselves, don't take the words of reporters.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
One of the problems with the information we have is that 800 year lag between temperature rise and rising CO2 levels. As Ian Plimer, Richard Lindzen, and others have pointed out this is a theory killer as far as CO2 being the driver. You simply cannot have an 800 year lag time and still say that CO2 is the cause. In order for it to be the cause it would have to precede the temperature rise or at least coincide with it. The 800 year lag is basically the wooden stake through the heart of the CO2 argument.
I don't understand. Your guy Dysan agrees CO2 causes warming and so does your guy Lindzen. Look it up. You seem to respect them....but they are all for something you say is all made up by bought scientists. What gives? I have supplied literature from respected science journals that explains the lag and how it actually supports the CO2 as a driver and you refuse to talk about it, or even indicate that you've read it. If you are really interested in the truth you would read it, study it and supply evidence that the scientists are wrong....or change your mind, but nothing seems to be happening. What are we left to conclude?
timbrframr is offline  
post #115 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 05:53 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
I really appreciate Charles diligence and persistence on this string. I still consider the pursuit of $10 - $16 Trillion booty to be the reason for falsely calling CO2 a pollutant, and since the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is miniscule, that there are more important things to consider. The economic turmoil of a quick changeover is daunting enough, but to pursue it at all costs is fraught with the likelihood unexpected consequences.
Whether or not it's called a pollutant doesn't matter a whole heckuva lot to me. It's bad for our well being and that of our children so it needs to be addressed....the title is of little personal interest to me. I grant it may have administrative or legal realities but however that might settle out shouldn't make any difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
I also note that anyone who presents an opposing view or data is called a fraud, or unqualified, is suspicious at best.
Sorry but that's pretty rich considering (it seems to me) you feel that thousands of scientists all around the world are part of some big conspiracy to lie and deceive. Because they feel something different that what you want to believe, you assert they are all crooked, bought, deceptive liars. If people who believe the science question anyone, they can supply evidence in the form of globally accepted science, collected with the scientific method, and scrutinized by other experts. If the deniers question they supply conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence and assertions that don't withstand scrutiny by experts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Yes, we do need to keep doing something about pollution, but that is almost entirely a problem with China, India, Indonesia, most of Africa and other LDCs, and we seem unable to muster the will to make that an trade issue. None of that garbage and poison will be diminished until all those countries suffer severe economic declines for continuing the pollute at will. That decline would probably cause the removal of the political parties in control, and some countries would simply not be able to keep up. How will they keep their people from starving to death? Now there's a real problem to consider instead of the CO2 delusion.

Having contributed to the war on Smog in Southern California by making PSAs for TV as a volunteer, I realize that you must have people come to see that the problem must be addressed, but that lesson has surely been learned by the so called climate scientists who have reverted to Goebels propaganda techniques.

Consider the rise of teen suicides. Many are afraid their lives will be over because of CO2, before they reach adulthood. That is one outcome of the scare the hell out of everyone tactics of the CO2 conspirators.
Hey I'm all for dealing with pollution, bring it on, but there are plenty of things we can do that will address both issues at the same time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
So plant trees and work over your politicians to insist on equal pollution controls as part of equal trade. Remove the advantage that the polluters have. Make it cost more to pollute in the LDCs mentioned above, than to put in the kinds of controls we are using here. The USA is pretty darn clean pollution wise for an industrial nation. If we focus on the real issue of pollution, perhaps we can force reduction of poison in the atmosphere, the atmosphere we all must share. I wonder how much cleaner the air over North America would be if we didn't have all that pollution from those countries?
.

Sounds great to me. But what I'm confused about is why you believe that smog is a problem? Ozone is considered at the "very unhealthy" level when it is at 0.4 PPM.....and a THOUSAND times less than CO2. Surely you'd agree that a thousand times less than what you describe as "minuscule" must also "seem" insignificant. So I guess all this air pollution nonsense must be a big conspiracy too??

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Thank you Charles for your research. I have followed the issue and read some critical material (Inconvenient Facts), but I see now that Brent has shouted us down with pretty specious arguments. And Charles, you are correct, no scientists would say difinitively that CO2 was the cause of climate change. That word is simply not used in real science. In my field, the MD "experts" insist that optometric vision therapy is bunk, a waste of money and that there's no proof it works. They are the voice of authority on vision, right? And they nearly all agree, right? The only problem is that that therapy turns out to be completly supported by almost two decades of neuro (brain) science. The exact location inside brains have been shown to be directly affected (and function improved), by such therapy. Clinical results are overwhelmingly favorable to the therapy, and you can diagnose by checklists (models), and clinical tests and observation. So if you have a kid who is failing in school, or a head injury patient whose visual disturbances keep them from functioning, and the therapy is used by the military for head injury rehabilitation, who should you believe? The so called experts who all agree that the competing profession are frauds? Or the people producing positive outcomes?
I haven't done any shouting though I've called others here on some nastiness. You can assert that arguments are "specious" but it's just assertion if you cannot supply any respectable data or information that withstands scientific scrutiny to support your assertions. In fact, no scientists I know of has said that CO2 is the only driver of climate change. The only ones I've heard say it's only one of the drivers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Need any clearer demonstration of the effect of money on international politics? And you won't hear about it because both key newspapers that set the tone and direction for all coverage, are owned by fabulously rich men.
Fabulously rich men like the Koch brothers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post

What I'd like to find out is whether Brent is going to get a piece of the booty if we fall for the scam?
Boy, you're getting into serious tinfoil hat territory there. Anyone who disagrees with you must have money in it eh? Yikes.....

Take a look at the "likes" there are plenty of folks who have supported what Rob has said and others who believe there must be something to it....how are they all cashing in?
timbrframr is offline  
post #116 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 08:14 PM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,302
 
Default

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...-fired.785291/

How many pro AGW signed because they were afraid of having the same thing happen to them that happened to Susan Crockford? https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...-fired.785291/ How many produced studies that concluded the way their funders wanted it to go? Like several scientists said on the Warming Swindle documentary, if you wanted research funds you had to tie it to global warming somehow. Obama promoted AGW. I wonder how many schools were afraid of funding cuts or other punitive measures if they published something that didn't agree with his position?
harrysin likes this.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is offline  
post #117 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 08:46 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherryville Chuck View Post
https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...-fired.785291/

How many pro AGW signed because they were afraid of having the same thing happen to them that happened to Susan Crockford? https://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...-fired.785291/ How many produced studies that concluded the way their funders wanted it to go? Like several scientists said on the Warming Swindle documentary, if you wanted research funds you had to tie it to global warming somehow. Obama promoted AGW. I wonder how many schools were afraid of funding cuts or other punitive measures if they published something that didn't agree with his position?
Yikes, your message board has a link to how Africans are inferior just four topics below that polar bear thread....you seem to visit very dark dark places...

Nothing kills a research scientist like publishing crappy work. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that don't give a crap what one stranger scientist's research funders might think. If they publish crap, someone will call them on it, so don't you worry. There does seem to be money in denial though, since most if not all of your denial "experts" are in the pocket of big oil, including Susan Crockford. Who wasn't fired by the way....she was in an unpaid position that wasn't renewed at the end of her contract.
timbrframr is offline  
post #118 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 11:59 PM
Forum Contributor
 
DesertRatTom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
First Name: Tom
Posts: 16,795
 
Default

Brent, I am completely convinced you're completely convinced. And your comment about the Africans being inferior mis-states what I think is the basis of that item. The research showed that IQ scores were lower by a few points for blacks, which makes some sense if you consider the low quality of education many blacks and minorities receive. And all you've done is blather some more attacking sources by accusing them of some form of incompetence or another. But do keep it up because you have created a pocket of resistance to the notion of CO2 "pollution." I don't much care to hear any more of your nonsense being presented as the holy grail. It IS about the money at this point. Whether or not all the scientists are colluding to get the money, the huge sums has surely attracted some. I'm done with this and hope that Charles will stop wasting his time on this string, at best it's raising his blood pressure.

Are you doing any woodworking, or are you just trolling?

The more I do, the less I accomplish.
DesertRatTom is offline  
post #119 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 12:41 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Country: Canada
First Name: Brent
Posts: 149
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Brent, I am completely convinced you're completely convinced.
The odds are best when the vast majority of people trained to know what they're talking about agree....and they do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
And all you've done is blather some more attacking sources by accusing them of some form of incompetence or another.
Actually, I've done a lot more than that. On most items I've provided respected science complete with references that demonstrate that the denier talking points are unsupported by people who are actually, properly trained to know what they're talking about.
You refuse to speak to those points. It's very straightforward though....show me the science that says the current, accepted science is wrong. When sources have no proper training to talk on a complicated subject, or are in the pocket of people with a financial interest in biasing, it's worth pointing out!

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
I don't much care to hear any more of your nonsense being presented as the holy grail.
My nonsense? It's not mine! You mean the scientific position currently accepted by the majority of properly trained experts? If you have heart problems, go ahead and talk to your gardener, I'll talk to a cardiologist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertRatTom View Post
Are you doing any woodworking, or are you just trolling?
Sad day when you support the vast majority of experts in the field and you get attacked and called a troll.

I'm timberframing these days!
timbrframr is offline  
post #120 of 336 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 01:56 AM
Moderation Team
 
Cherryville Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Country: Canada
First Name: Charles
Posts: 15,302
 
Default

I was simply looking for the first article I could find that named the woman and stated that she was fired for not telling the lie that polar bears are in distress and decline. I couldn't care less what the source was. I saw the original story a few days ago and couldn't remember her name. Here's an interesting group of deniers and I included numerous sources for you to bash:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nasa-...auts_n_1418017
https://www.livescience.com/19640-na...ng-letter.html
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07...ng-was-staged/
https://www.mic.com/articles/6804/50...global-warming
https://www.livescience.com/19643-na...l-warming.html
https://www.iceagenow.info/nasa-scie...ange-activism/

I could go on but that should be enough. And these guys worked for NASA where much of the data is coming from and they smell a rat.

Someone I consider a master woodworker once told me that a master woodworker is not someone who never makes mistakes. He is someone who is able to cover them up so that no one can tell.
Cherryville Chuck is offline  
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Router Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome