A letter and appeal on Climate Change

mailman said:
Hmmmm...I wonder what goodies we are going to see? Especially in the light of what we saw in the very brief snapshot that was Climategate...I just wonder what goodies lie waiting to be exposed to the light of day?

I guess at the end of the day it doesnt really matter as those who believe Mann is the sole cause of global warming will just bury their heads even deeper in to the sand! :D

Mailman
Click to expand...
It's speculation but I assume the question would be something like this.

A. Mann states in a grant application that there is no doubt the 20th century is the hottest on record and the last decade the hottest <blah blah blah> standard warmer propaganda.

B. In email talking honestly he is more reserved and questions to what extent we know for sure what we know.

"A", used to snare monies, now is proved to be a serious mis statement by "B". Basically he'd be caught in a LIE.
 
mhaze said:
It's speculation but I assume the question would be something like this.

A. Mann states in a grant application that there is no doubt the 20th century is the hottest on record and the last decade the hottest <blah blah blah> standard warmer propaganda.
Click to expand...

That's not a question, it's a statement. Do you have any evidence for it?

B. In email talking honestly he is more reserved and questions to what extent we know for sure what we know.
Click to expand...

Again, any evidence for such a discrepancy? Perhaps a quote from a relevant email?

"A", used to snare monies, now is proved to be a serious mis statement by "B". Basically he'd be caught in a LIE.
Click to expand...

Were your statements valid this would be a reasonable conclusion. You'll forgive me for doubting their validity, given the source.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
That's not a question, it's a statement. Do you have any evidence for it?



Again, any evidence for such a discrepancy? Perhaps a quote from a relevant email?



Were your statements valid this would be a reasonable conclusion. You'll forgive me for doubting their validity, given the source.
Click to expand...
Off track. It's not for me to provide you evidence and it is irrelevant what you think, or what your opinion is. It's also irrelevant what mine is.

It's a matter being handled by the Attorney General, an active investigation.
 
mhaze said:
Off track. It's not for me to provide you evidence and it is irrelevant what you think, or what your opinion is. It's also irrelevant what mine is.

It's a matter being handled by the Attorney General, an active investigation.
Click to expand...

The Attorney General? Eric Holder? Or are you talking about a state attorney general that is also an AGW denialist?

As we both know it's the latter, this lie by omission on your part will be quoted in the "Lies" thread.
 
mhaze said:
Off track. It's not for me to provide you evidence and it is irrelevant what you think, or what your opinion is. It's also irrelevant what mine is.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of opinion that you defined "the question" as being two statements by yourself (two statements do not make a question), neither of which you can substantiate anyway.

It's a matter being handled by the Attorney General, an active investigation.
Click to expand...

The Attorney General of Virginia. As if anybody's surprised, or expects him to ever terminate the investigation during his elected term. "No smoke without fire" may work for you (except when you don't want there to be a fire) but it doesn't work for normal folk.
 
Some posts moved to AAH.

Remember to address the argument, not the the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
bit_pattern said:
Even WaPo is calling this anti academic witchhunt a travesty, which is really saying something considering their usually reflexive denialist position

U-Va. should fight Cuccinelli's faulty investigation of Michael Mann
Click to expand...

I can see how that position could be possible. But since I don't know the facts, and since whatever I or you said would have no influence on that active investigation, what is the point of assigning perjorative terms to it?

Say by way of comparison the Duke LaCross players rape incident, where the DA was clearly at fault. Evidence emerged early on that there was no crime. Is there some obvious issue of "no crime" here?

Would you exclude research bids for state money from criminal fraud investigations?

(I can see some possible merit in that, but also some bad effects).
 
Hmmm....

No answers about excluding climate sciency types from criminal fraud investigation?
 
In other words:
sure they would (exclude); scientists - especially climate scientists - are so near to divinity and infallibility, that no investigation is warranted as nothing would/could ever be uncovered, as there is nothing there.:D
 
Yes, it does seem like a concerted effort to deligitimise the investigation by the Mann Made Global Warming (tm) believers is going on.

Surely if they are so confident about the belief that they have nothing to fear from this investigation?

OR...is there something they are afraid of being uncovered that would be even more damning than that small snapshot provided by the CRU leak of how badly behaved climate scientists can be in protecting their holy grail?

Mailman
 
mailman said:
Yes, it does seem like a concerted effort to deligitimise the investigation by the Mann Made Global Warming (tm) believers is going on.

Surely if they are so confident about the belief that they have nothing to fear from this investigation?

OR...is there something they are afraid of being uncovered that would be even more damning than that small snapshot provided by the CRU leak of how badly behaved climate scientists can be in protecting their holy grail?

Mailman
Click to expand...

Or, it could be that the contant attacks on scientists by the anti-science brigade is getting tiresome. There's work to be done. Climatologists don't have time to fight a rear-guard action against anti-science mobs like you and this Virginia AG.

Thankfully there's not many of you, however loud you are, and you are fighting a losing battle, which is clear by the desperate actions taken by denialists after "climategate" blew up in your faces.
 
Umm, two questions:
What "desperate actions" "after Climategate" and
How did it blow up in anyones faces?
 
uke2se said:
Or, it could be that the contant attacks on scientists by the anti-science brigade is getting tiresome. There's work to be done. Climatologists don't have time to fight a rear-guard action against anti-science mobs like you and this Virginia AG.
Click to expand...

Always the name calling...anyone who opposes Mann Made Global Warming (tm) are anti-science yet Im pretty sure that people like McIntyre's only interest is in seeing the science being done right. Yet time and time again, McIntyre has had to fight to get data from so called climate scientists released to him...and when it is its pulled apart without mercy.

Having said that, I can see why people like Jones dont like releasing data to people like McIntyre, because every time they do, their sloppy science is exposed time and time again.

Thankfully there's not many of you, however loud you are, and you are fighting a losing battle, which is clear by the desperate actions taken by denialists after "climategate" blew up in your faces.
Click to expand...

Ah, the confidence of arrogance. How enlightening. Although Im pretty sure the desperation you can feel isnt coming from those skeptical of mans involvement in global warming (tm) :D

Regards

Mailman
 
mailman said:
Always the name calling...anyone who opposes Mann Made Global Warming (tm) are anti-science
Click to expand...

Not at all. I oppose man-made global warming (the extra 'n' isn't very clever by the way). I firmly oppose it. I say we should do something about it. You, however, don't want us to do anything about it because you believe there's a conspiracy among scientists to raise your taxes or some **** like that. It's pretty hilarious, but it does get in the way of the whole "doing something about it" that needs to happen soon.

mailman said:
yet Im pretty sure that people like McIntyre's only interest is in seeing the science being done right.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that at all. McIntyre is a prospector type. He's in Big Oil's pocket, as is evident by his background and the way he acts. Once all the inquiries into CRU are in I'd like to see him sued for libel.

mailman said:
Yet time and time again, McIntyre has had to fight to get data from so called climate scientists released to him...and when it is its pulled apart without mercy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a lie. McIntyre did file an extraordinary amount of FOI requests for data. He even asked his flock on his blog to do the same, just alter the area for the data and send it in. It'll tie up some time for those guys over at CRU. The problem was that he already had all the data CRU could lawfully provide him with. It was public for a long time before the FOI requests started. The only data he couldn't get was the raw data which wasn't owned by CRU and which he could get by paying the people who collected the data instead. But McIntyre was dead set on obstructing scientific process, so he filed his FOI requests.

You know, you should really read the whole story and not just what your denialist blogs tell you.

mailman said:
Having said that, I can see why people like Jones dont like releasing data to people like McIntyre, because every time they do, their sloppy science is exposed time and time again.
Click to expand...

Sorry, gonna have to call lie there again. McIntyre has provided one small contribution to climate science. It was fairly minor, but nevertheless, his contribution was accepted by the climatologists. Since then, he has been wrong time and time again.


mailman said:
Ah, the confidence of arrogance. How enlightening. Although Im pretty sure the desperation you can feel isnt coming from those skeptical of mans involvement in global warming (tm) :D
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. Denialists are crawling out of the woodwork after the emails they stole proved to be nothing to talk about. You guys act like you're drowning when you can't deal with the science. You jabber on about talking-points that were debunked years ago, some times even centuries. It's fun to watch from a purely anthropological standpoint. From a climate scientific standpoint it's getting old fast.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
In other words:
sure they would (exclude); scientists - especially climate scientists - are so near to divinity and infallibility, that no investigation is warranted as nothing would/could ever be uncovered, as there is nothing there.:D
Click to expand...
Well, everyone knows that some investigations by DA's are politically motivated.

Like those on the other side's politicians. But nobody suggests that criminal investigations into politicians should be stopped.

Now we have some people (apparently) asserting that criminal investigations into climate scientists should be stopped.

I'd just like to know more about this curious concept.
 
mhaze said:
Now we have some people (apparently) asserting that criminal investigations into climate scientists should be stopped.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see you quote any of use asserting that. Do it or retract.
 
uke2se said:
I'm not so sure about that at all. McIntyre is a prospector type. He's in Big Oil's pocket, as is evident by his background and the way he acts. Once all the inquiries into CRU are in I'd like to see him sued for libel.
Click to expand...

Oh, McIntyre is in the pocket of Big Oil (tm). BWAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA :D By his background, I guess you mean when he worked for some prospecting company...what 20, 30 years ago?

But ask yourself this. Who stands to make more from Mann Made Global warming (tm)? Al Gore (slated to become the worlds first carbon BILLIONAIRE) or Steve McIntyre who most certainly will not be making Billions from Mann Made Global Warming?

McIntyre did file an extraordinary amount of FOI requests for data.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if Jones or Biffa had released the requested data the first time (what, 10 years ago?), then McIntyre wouldnt have had to send in a few FOI requests (remembering a number of emails from Jones around HIDING data from McIntyre et al)?

Dont forget that the FOI office also found that CRU had been sadly wanting in how it managed FOI requests and only through an act of sheer good luck did no criminal or civil proceedings come out of this (because of the rediculously short period of time in the FOI act for dealing with complaints).

The problem was that he already had all the data CRU could lawfully provide him with.
Click to expand...
What he was after was the meta data, which was removed from what limited data had been released by CRU over the course of the very many years he had been chasing them. In fact, it wasnt until one of those learned scientific journals actually ENFORCED their data archiving policy that McIntyre finally got a look in to how so called climate scientists had been "fixing" its data.

But McIntyre was dead set on obstructing scientific process, so he filed his FOI requests.
Click to expand...
Ah...the contortions to justify the lack of transparency in climate science. Isnt it amazing. From what I can see, the problem you have with McIntyre is that everytime he gets his hands on the climate data used by Jones et al he pulls it apart and highlights time and time again just how hollow the ground is for Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

You know, you should really read the whole story and not just what your denialist blogs tell you.
Click to expand...
Yes you should read the whole story.

Since then, he has been wrong time and time again.
Click to expand...
Merely your opinion, which Im sure you could back up if you had anything to go on (other than your own opinion that is).

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is. Denialists are crawling out of the woodwork after the emails they stole
Click to expand...
Stolen? Unless you have access to something no one else does...prove they were stolen.

You see, this is yet another example of the continued attempts at deligitimising those who would dare to challenge Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

It all adds up really. The name calling, ranting about "stolen emails", liberlous staments (that x worked for big oil)...really all a very sad attempt at silencing those who are skeptical around your religions foundations.

Yep, sad indeed.

Mailman
 
Last edited:
mailman said:
Oh, McIntyre is in the pocket of Big Oil (tm). BWAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHA :D By his background, I guess you mean when he worked for some prospecting company...what 20, 30 years ago?
Click to expand...

Try 7 years ago.

mailman said:
But ask yourself this. Who stands to make more from Mann Made Global warming (tm)?
Click to expand...

Nobody stands to gain in the long run. If nothing is done, we all lose. In the short run, Big Oil, Big Coal etc stand to gain untold billions of dollars.

mailman said:
Al Gore (slated to become the worlds first carbon BILLIONAIRE)
Click to expand...

Trust me, nobody cares about Al Gore, nor does anybody ask him about climate related science. We go to climatologists for that. Not that Gore was wrong. He's just not the poster boy you need him to be.

mailman said:
or Steve McIntyre who most certainly will not be making Billions from Mann Made Global Warming?
Click to expand...

While I don't doubt McIntyre is making a pretty penny telling lies about climate science, his big gain is post-retirement notoriety.

mailman said:
Perhaps if Jones or Biffa had released the requested data the first time (what, 10 years ago?), then McIntyre wouldnt have had to send in a few FOI requests (remembering a number of emails from Jones around HIDING data from McIntyre et al)?
Click to expand...

Didn't you understand what I wrote? The data that could be given was always public. The rest was raw data that couldn't be given by CRU. If McIntyre wanted that data he would have to pay money for it, just like CRU did.

There were no emails from Jones telling anyone to hide data. Jones has been cleared on this by two independent inquiries. You should stop with that lie now as it has been blown apart.

mailman said:
Dont forget that the FOI office also found that CRU had been sadly wanting in how it managed FOI requests and only through an act of sheer good luck did no criminal or civil proceedings come out of this (because of the rediculously short period of time in the FOI act for dealing with complaints).
Click to expand...

That's a pretty bold assertion. I trust you have evidence for this?

mailman said:
What he was after was the meta data, which was removed from what limited data had been released by CRU over the course of the very many years he had been chasing them.
Click to expand...

Yes. The data that couldn't be released because it didn't belong to CRU. McIntyre could still get that data, but he would have to pay the people who owned the data.

mailman said:
In fact, it wasnt until one of those learned scientific journals actually ENFORCED their data archiving policy that McIntyre finally got a look in to how so called climate scientists had been "fixing" its data.
Click to expand...

Hohum, another lie. Please, take the advice I gave you before. This isn't Wattsuphisass. People here know when you're lying.

mailman said:
Ah...the contortions to justify the lack of transparency in climate science. Isnt it amazing. From what I can see, the problem you have with McIntyre is that everytime he gets his hands on the climate data used by Jones et al he pulls it apart and highlights time and time again just how hollow the ground is for Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
Click to expand...

No, that's not the problem I have with McIntyre as should be obvious to anyone able to read my posts. Perhaps you should take an English course as you're obviously having problems reading it.

mailman said:
Yes you should read the whole story.
Click to expand...

I have. You obviously haven't.

mailman said:
Merely your opinion, which Im sure you could back up if you had anything to go on (other than your own opinion that is).
Click to expand...

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of most climate scientists. You should read something other than denialist blogs once in a while.

mailman said:
Stolen? Unless you have access to something no one else does...prove they were stolen.
Click to expand...

Hacker... emails... posted online. That's pretty much common knowledge.

mailman said:
You see, this is yet another example of the continued attempts at deligitimising those who would dare to challenge Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
Click to expand...

No, this is another example of denialists blowing their wad before they understand what they have.

mailman said:
It all adds up really. The name calling, ranting about "stolen emails", liberlous staments (that x worked for big oil)...really all a very sad attempt at silencing those who are skeptical around your religions foundations.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about libelous statements, you've made a few in your posts here I'd say.

/Edit: It should be noted - again - that the "religion" insult that denialists like to use really is an astounding piece of projection, given that the denialist movement perfectly mimics fundamentalist religion while the people the denialists are attacking stands for science and reason.
 
Last edited:
Uke,

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has decided that the University of East Anglia did not properly handle requests for material held by its Climatic Research Unit.

Under section 77 of the FOI Act, it is an offence to intentionally prevent the disclosure of information to which an FOI applicant is entitled.

But action has to be initiated within six months of the offence being committed. In this case the evidence in the UEA's e-mails has come to light too late for any prosecution to be considered.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate_data_why_ministers_ref.html
Click to expand...

Of course you could have found this yourself...but instead chose to bury your head deeper in to the sand.

I chose the BBC as the source material for this BECAUSE the BBC is squarely in favour of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), and wouldnt give you an opt out if I had posted a link to a site that doubts the current Mann Made Global Warming (tm) theory.

It should be noted - again - that the "religion" insult that denialists like to use really is an astounding piece of projection, given that the denialist movement perfectly mimics fundamentalist religion while the people the denialists are attacking stands for science and reason.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, its those who are seeking the truth that are doing the projecting here :D

Again, the deligitimsation of anyone who dares question the faith of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is astonishing. Anymeans is ok aye...harping about stolen emails or non-existent links to big oil (conveniently forgetting CRU's links to BP :D).

It's not just my opinion. It's the opinion of most climate scientists. You should read something other than denialist blogs once in a while.
Click to expand...

Oh right...so now you know "most" of the climate scientists out there? :jaw-dropp

Mailman
 
Last edited:
Uke...sorry, Id reply to every single point in your last post, but alas I have to go do the bidding of big oil now (and do some real work! :D).

Mailman
 
mailman said:
....BBC as the source material for this BECAUSE the BBC is squarely in favour of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), and wouldnt give you an opt out if I had posted a link to a site that doubts the current Mann Made Global Warming (tm) theory.....
Click to expand...
Good point - the time limit for prosecution under the statutes had expired so no charges were brought.

I would wonder if that could be caused, rather than circumstance. In other words, if on any FOI, you stall seven months, are you clear of prosecution?

If so that's an error in the statutes.
 
mailman said:
Uke,



Of course you could have found this yourself...but instead chose to bury your head deeper in to the sand.

I chose the BBC as the source material for this BECAUSE the BBC is squarely in favour of Mann Made Global Warming (tm), and wouldnt give you an opt out if I had posted a link to a site that doubts the current Mann Made Global Warming (tm) theory.
Click to expand...

According to wikipedia the case is still open, and the COI was criticized for making "a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate". So, hang up your pom-poms there, buddy.

mailman said:
Ah yes, its those who are seeking the truth that are doing the projecting here :D
Click to expand...

No, I clearly said that the denialists are doing the projection. Not the people seeking the truth, i.e, the scientists and the people supporting science and reason.

mailman said:
Again, the deligitimsation of anyone who dares question the faith of Mann Made Global Warming (tm) is astonishing. Anymeans is ok aye...harping about stolen emails or non-existent links to big oil (conveniently forgetting CRU's links to BP :D).
Click to expand...

The emails were stolen unless you have a better definition for "hacked and then put online". The links to big oil are well documented, but you wouldn't know that because you won't read about that in denialist blogs. While CRU had dealings with BP, that is hardly an argument for your side, is it?

As for "Any means is ok", that is the denialist motto. You should read this. It provides a look into how the denialist movement operates. It's shameful, really.

mailman said:
Oh right...so now you know "most" of the climate scientists out there? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

No, and I never said I did. It seems that you're not only having difficulties reading written English, but you are also having grave difficulties comprehending what you do manage to read. I'd suggest more schooling.
 
uke2se said:
According to wikipedia the case is still open, and the COI was criticized for making "a statement to the press that went beyond that which it could substantiate". So, hang up your pom-poms there, buddy.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the wikipedia page? No, didnt think so.

The emails were stolen unless you have a better definition for "hacked and then put online".
Click to expand...
Yes, hows about "leaked"? Unless of course you have access to information that NO one else has or proof positive the emails were stolen then front up with it. Naturally Im assuming you have heard of a little something along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty"...or are we now entering the territory where those who question Mann Made Global Warming (tm) should be guilty until proven innocent?

The links to big oil are well documented, but you wouldn't know that because you won't read about that in denialist blogs. While CRU had dealings with BP, that is hardly an argument for your side, is it?
Click to expand...

Who exactly is taking all this dirty money from big oil? Im pretty sure McIntyre isnt pumping his bank account full of black gold...whereas CRU's links to big oil money are pretty well documented.

There is billions, if not trillions to be made through Mann Made Global Warming (tm), big oil knows this and if you opened your eyes just a little you would be able to see some of the fraud already being carried out because of green energy requirements.

BTW, the link you provided...maybe you should read page 10? Although I suspect you will of course ignore the first paragraph :D

As for "Any means is ok", that is the denialist motto. You should read this. It provides a look into how the denialist movement operates. It's shameful, really.
Click to expand...

I had a good read through your link...it is breath taking isnt it?

But it does beg the question, if the move to "target" climate scientists is so well organised, funded and LARGE...how come there is absolutely no evidence put forward of that apart from "one or two cyber bullies hinting at the level of organisation" going on?

The tarring also going on in that report is itself breath taking. Isnt it interesting though that the report attempts to portray someone like Andrew Bolt as being an agitator...yet has absolutely nothing to say about the activities of George Monboit (remembering he himself admitted that he was out of his depth when it came to debating Mann Made Global Warming (tm)).

The language used throughout the document is so loaded and biased that it can in no way be considered an unbiased report. Denialists, anti-science, hacking...while mistakes by the IPCC are merely referred to as "alleged".

BTW, thanks for the link to Bolts website oh and its pretty well know that the ABC is the BBC of Australia when it comes to the belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) :D

No, and I never said I did. It seems that you're not only having difficulties reading written English, but you are also having grave difficulties comprehending what you do manage to read. I'd suggest more schooling.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you never said that? Because when I look back at your posts you very clearly said that most scientists around the world agree with you. Now, you could only know that if you personally KNEW most scientists around the world, which of course we know you dont :D

Regards

Mailman
 
mailman said:
Who exactly is taking all this dirty money from big oil? Im pretty sure McIntyre isnt pumping his bank account full of black gold...whereas CRU's links to big oil money are pretty well documented.

There is billions, if not trillions to be made through Mann Made Global Warming (tm), big oil knows this and if you opened your eyes just a little you would be able to see some of the fraud already being carried out because of green energy requirements.

BTW, the link you provided...maybe you should read page 10? Although I suspect you will of course ignore the first paragraph :D

I had a good read through your link...it is breath taking isnt it?

But it does beg the question, if the move to "target" climate scientists is so well organised, funded and LARGE...how come there is absolutely no evidence put forward of that apart from "one or two cyber bullies hinting at the level of organisation" going on?

The tarring also going on in that report is itself breath taking. Isnt it interesting though that the report attempts to portray someone like Andrew Bolt as being an agitator...yet has absolutely nothing to say about the activities of George Monboit (remembering he himself admitted that he was out of his depth when it came to debating Mann Made Global Warming (tm)).
Click to expand...

It sounds a lot like the warmers want to be/or suggest they are victims of some sort of conspiracy theory. Ironic huh? :rolleyes:

mailman said:
The language used throughout the document is so loaded and biased that it can in no way be considered an unbiased report. Denialists, anti-science, hacking...while mistakes by the IPCC are merely referred to as "alleged".
Click to expand...

Yup; more warmerporn.
 
mailman said:
Did you even read the wikipedia page? No, didnt think so.
Click to expand...

I did, hence I was able to quote from it. You see how that works?

mailman said:
Yes, hows about "leaked"?
Click to expand...

Prove it.

mailman said:
Unless of course you have access to information that NO one else has or proof positive the emails were stolen then front up with it.
Click to expand...

Even if the emails were "leaked", they were still stolen, as they didn't belong to whomever put them online. So, they were stolen, as per the definition of the term.

mailman said:
Naturally Im assuming you have heard of a little something along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty"
Click to expand...

That's ironic. It seems none of your denialist chums were willing to offer said courtesy to Jones and Mann et al after the emails were stolen.

mailman said:
...or are we now entering the territory where those who question Mann Made Global Warming (tm) should be guilty until proven innocent?
Click to expand...

As long as it applies equally to both sides, I think we're fine.


mailman said:
Who exactly is taking all this dirty money from big oil? Im pretty sure McIntyre isnt pumping his bank account full of black gold...whereas CRU's links to big oil money are pretty well documented.
Click to expand...

McIntyre's links are well documented. BP was one of the original sponsors of CRU. I still can't see how this is an argument for your side, though. Even if CRU was fully sponsored today by BP, it wouldn't say anything at all. BP is an oil company, and the work CRU does today goes against oil company profiteering.

mailman said:
There is billions, if not trillions to be made through Mann Made Global Warming (tm), big oil knows this and if you opened your eyes just a little you would be able to see some of the fraud already being carried out because of green energy requirements.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. This is some sort of reverse psychology trolling. Just a hint from me to you, it makes your whole argument look stupid.

mailman said:
BTW, the link you provided...maybe you should read page 10? Although I suspect you will of course ignore the first paragraph :D
Click to expand...

Which link was that? Could you please highlight the point you are trying to make. I don't enjoy debating against someone who only makes vague statements and hints. Spill the beans or get lost.

mailman said:
I had a good read through your link...it is breath taking isnt it?
Click to expand...

Truly revolting if you ask me.

mailman said:
But it does beg the question, if the move to "target" climate scientists is so well organised, funded and LARGE...how come there is absolutely no evidence put forward of that apart from "one or two cyber bullies hinting at the level of organisation" going on?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. You didn't look at any of the footnotes, did you?

mailman said:
The tarring also going on in that report is itself breath taking.
Click to expand...

Tarring? It's a document about how denialists operate. There's no tarring going on there.

mailman said:
Isnt it interesting though that the report attempts to portray someone like Andrew Bolt as being an agitator...yet has absolutely nothing to say about the activities of George Monboit (remembering he himself admitted that he was out of his depth when it came to debating Mann Made Global Warming (tm)).
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the report about Vladimir Putin or Richard Nixon either. It's not relevant to the scope of the article. If you want to argue that George Monbiot has spawned legions of munchkins threatening scientists to death, go ahead. Just be prepared to back it up.

mailman said:
The language used throughout the document is so loaded and biased that it can in no way be considered an unbiased report. Denialists, anti-science, hacking...while mistakes by the IPCC are merely referred to as "alleged".
Click to expand...

First, it's not a report. It's a series of articles. Second, of course it's biased. It's biased towards reason and against moonbat crazies like denialists and their antics. Mistakes in the IPCC is handled pretty well in the article, I think. There was one pretty major mistake, that still didn't alter the conclusion of the report, and the rest were figments of denialist imaginations.

mailman said:
BTW, thanks for the link to Bolts website oh and its pretty well know that the ABC is the BBC of Australia when it comes to the belief in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) :D
Click to expand...

You mean producing fair and accurate reporting as opposed to politically biased crap reporting like FOX news et al?


mailman said:
Are you sure you never said that? Because when I look back at your posts you very clearly said that most scientists around the world agree with you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. I didn't say I knew them all, though. Are you having difficulties with the term "know"?

mailman said:
Now, you could only know that if you personally KNEW most scientists around the world, which of course we know you dont :D
Click to expand...

Ok, sit down and let me tell you a story. There's this thing called "media". It takes many different forms, written in books, television, radio, even the internet. It's magical in the way it can transmit ideas from one person to the next without the two ever meeting. Gone are the days of yore were people had to sit face to face to commune. We are living in the future, Billy, and in the future, information is readily accessible.
 
As Im sure even you know, Nixon and Putin have no relevance to the discussion on Mann Made Global Warming (tm), unlike Monboit...so it would have been relevant for Monboit to be included as balance to references of right wing agitation.

And you are right, that link of yours is truly revolting in how biased and singular the authors views are on Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

BTW, wasnt Clive Hamilton advocating for the suspension of democracy in Australia? :jaw-dropp :D

Oh, you might want to check this site of violent right wing terrorists out for some balance on how ABC operates in Australia (christ, they even call ABC Aunty...just like the BBC! :D).
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/

Ok, sit down and let me tell you a story. There's this thing called "media". It takes many different forms, written in books, television, radio, even the internet.
Click to expand...

Oh, so now you are changing your story? :D So now its the media says whereas before it was you who knew most scientists....oh how your story is falling apart :D

Mailman
 
Last edited:
mailman said:
As Im sure even you know, Nixon and Putin have no relevance to the discussion on Mann Made Global Warming (tm), unlike Monboit...so it would have been relevant for Monboit to be included as balance to references of right wing agitation.
Click to expand...

No, because the subject was about how denialist agitators incite their disciples into criminal acts. Do you feel that Monbiot has done so as well? If so, please provide evidence.

mailman said:
And you are right, that link of yours is truly revolting in how biased and singular the authors views are on Mann Made Global Warming (tm).
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a direct question: Do you think it is ok for people to email death threats and obscenities to scientists just because the senders don't like the conclusions the scientists have arrived at through research?

mailman said:
BTW, wasnt Clive Hamilton advocating for the suspension of democracy in Australia? :jaw-dropp :D
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Feel free to provide evidence for such an assertion and then start a thread in the relevant forum. This isn't it.

mailman said:
Oh, you might want to check this site of violent right wing terrorists out for some balance on how ABC operates in Australia (christ, they even call ABC Aunty...just like the BBC! :D).
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

Very interesting if you are living in Australia, but not relevant to this discussion, nor to the series of articles I linked, as they stand alone and are consistently sourced.


mailman said:
Oh, so now you are changing your story? :D So now its the media says whereas before it was you who knew most scientists....oh how your story is falling apart :D
Click to expand...

Changing my story? Are you serious? Is your whole intention here to just troll and be obnoxious? Couldn't you try to offer a sane argument, preferably science related, in this science forum? You're not making any sense at all, and the only thing one can gather from your posts is that there's a lot of rage put into them.
 
Except these warmers don't bury their heads in the sand, they try to bury your heads in the sand with a bunch of warmerporn propaganda.

They say that if you ignore global warming you are responsible for little girls being ran over like by trains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOi5FclEh_Q

Our planet hugging friends at Greenpeace tell us we're drowning babies?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSsIIxQ_dE&feature=related

Let's have some more WarmerPorn!

Bring it on!

Postscript: Greenpeace again. Man, these guys are cluelessly stupid. They've got JFK talking about the moon landing...in the past tense (plus sounding like a robot puppet).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8dLHZ6jKFc&feature=related

Hmmm....really you know the Mods should censor this stuff relating to our killing babies and helpless little girls. That it's just adds that have been running on our Televisions doesn't matter. They need to Protect Us from WarmerPorn.:D
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
No, because the subject was about how denialist agitators incite their disciples into criminal acts. Do you feel that Monbiot has done so as well? If so, please provide evidence.
Click to expand...
Putin and Nixon are irrelevant as they have absolutely no involvement in this discussion. However Monboit is directly relevant because he is an advocate for Mann Made Global Warming who has used his position of "power" to shout down anyone who dares challenge Mann Made Global Warming (tm).

Now, the link you provided had absolutely no evidence that those blogs who are skeptical of mans involvement in Mann Made Global Warming (tm) are advocating violence towards scientists. Clives document was nothing more than a one sided hit peice and reflected nothing more than his own opinion, backed up with VERY LITTLE evidence.

Let me ask you a direct question: Do you think it is ok for people to email death threats and obscenities to scientists just because the senders don't like the conclusions the scientists have arrived at through research?
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant, however violence by anyone against anyone on either side of the argument is out of order. Im pretty sure you and I can agree on this?

Very interesting if you are living in Australia, but not relevant to this discussion, nor to the series of articles I linked, as they stand alone and are consistently sourced.
Click to expand...
The ABC is relevant to this discussion given their absolute faith in Mann Made Global Warming (tm). The ABC is an advocate for Mann Made Global Warming (tm), and just like the BBC, use their position as a publicly funded body to push "their" belief on to the public.

Changing my story? Are you serious? Is your whole intention here to just troll and be obnoxious?
Click to expand...
Always with the name calling. Cant you for once rise above this? :D


Couldn't you try to offer a sane argument, preferably science related, in this science forum? You're not making any sense at all, and the only thing one can gather from your posts is that there's a lot of rage put into them.
Click to expand...

The argument is sane...the problem you have is that you dont like your belief system being challenged and anyone who dares to challenge that system must be "obnoxious", using stolen emails and hate mongers :D

Mailman
 
mhaze said:
Good point - the time limit for prosecution under the statutes had expired so no charges were brought.

I would wonder if that could be caused, rather than circumstance. In other words, if on any FOI, you stall seven months, are you clear of prosecution?

If so that's an error in the statutes.
Click to expand...

Mhaze,

Someone has pointed out that the problem isnt the FOI act, but with the Majestrates act which is where the enforcement comes from (which has the 6 month time limit).

Interestingly enough, the BBC is exempt from the FOI act if a request is made for information that relates to journalistic output. So when people send in FOI requests for the names of all persons who attended the BBC's Mann Made Global Warming (tm) conference a couple years ago (where the BBC set its Mann Made Global Warming (tm) agenda)...of course the BBC refused those requests on the grounds that the conference related to its output as a media organisation.

Regards

Mailman
 
mailman said:
.....violence by anyone against anyone on either side of the argument is out of order. Im pretty sure you and I can agree on this? .....

Mailman
Click to expand...
Hahahaha....

Did you get an answer to that, or did you just get put on ignore?

I'll tell you why Warmers won't answer this question. You see, they already think you and those like you are violent because you and those like you are killing tomorrow's children and babies. So this fantasized violence concept....It bears remarkable resemblances to carbon trading, where by government mandate people are forced to engage in buying and selling imaginary invisible clouds.

Evidence? The ads I just posted.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Hahahaha....

Did you get an answer to that, or did you just get put on ignore?
Click to expand...

I find it telling that you guffaw at the notion of someone threatening a scientists to death because he doesn't like the scientific conclusions.

mhaze said:
I'll tell you why Warmers won't answer this question. You see, they already think you and those like you are violent because you and those like you are killing tomorrow's children and babies.
Click to expand...

No, I think some denialists are violent because they threaten people. Is that concept hard for you to understand?

mhaze said:
So this fantasized violence concept....It bears remarkable resemblances to carbon trading, where by government mandate people are forced to engage in buying and selling imaginary invisible clouds.
Click to expand...

Fantasized? Hardly. Evidence has been provided.
 
Speaking of... somethings..., Poptech is back on RS.org, with the same old crap that he's always spewing. His antics got him mod attention on his first day posting. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom