Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[OCinBuffalo]

Read:

http://www.spiegel.d...ments-box-pager

 

This is from the Germans, of all people. I particuarly like the fact that the attitude is on full display:

"Climate policy needs the element of fear," Ott openly admits. "Otherwise, no politician would take on this topic."

These fascists aren't even trying to hide it anymore. Fear. The motivating factor upon which all socialist/fascist totalitarianism is based, and, this turd just comes right out and says it. How nice...for me. I now a have a new weapon for all futher threads on this subject. Thanks idiots.

 

Also, how deliciously hilarious is this?

Another possible explanation is that the large quantity of soot emitted into the atmosphere by cars and factory smokestacks in Asia has had a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

So, now, supposed "Global Warming-causing" pollution is the reason Global Warming isn't happening? Pollution, is preventing the effects of: pollution?

 

:lol:

 

And of course, there's my favorite: it's all hiding at the bottom of the ocean.

He explains that it would mean the greenhouse effect is adding more and more energy into the climate system, exactly as the simulations predict, just with a larger portion of that energy than expected disappearing temporarily into the ocean.

Do the words "disappearing temporarily" find themselves being used by scientists a lot? Aren't these words more likley to be found in use by fairy tale writers? Doesn't intermediate physics suggest that in fact, NOTHING, dissappears, never mind temporarily?

 

And, of course we aren't allowed to see the minutes of their PR strategy meetings, because then we might use them against them.

To ensure it remains the sole authority on climate predictions, the panel plans not to publish the complete report for some time after the release of the summary and not even release transcripts from the negotiations in Stockholm.

How scientific of them. Remind me? Which group does this sort of thing, scientists, or politicians? Who has secrets? Who is supposed to be about free thought and free expression and freedom of the press?

 

But, it's not like there aren't more weapons for me, they just keep handing them out like samples at Sam's club.

 

Read:

http://ww.dailymail....redictions.html

 

For those who are used to only reading books with pictures in them(you know who you are):

 

WTF IS THAT? WTF is that, clowns? How did that happen?

 

I know! I know! Chinese Pollution!

 

:lol:

 

This just gets funnier every minute. I can't wait for the IPCC report to come out, so that I can have a great laugh. Foolish desperation is alway good for the lulz.

 

 

EDIT: The entire theory of AGW is now predicated upon the speculation that: either pollution is preventing effects of pollution, or, energy is temporarily disappearing at the bottom of the ocean. Think about that for a second...ALL of the modeling, ALL of the data, ALL of it...is only valid if one of these two speculations proves correct.

 

So much for "settled science". The theory is now 100% dependent upon speculation, for it to have a chance of being true.

 

You know what this is called in poker? Being short on chips, and going all in, because...there's nothing else you can do.

Edited September 25, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[KD in CA]

You forgot 'connor' as one of your post tags.

 

That's some pretty rich stuff there.

[OCinBuffalo]

You forgot 'connor' as one of your post tags.

 

That's some pretty rich stuff there.

Fixed. I went with 'connerific'. That's how I'm feeling today. This IPCC "hide the truth" process story has me feeling quite connerific. We already know the report is a lie, even before it comes out, which is why they are running to the press and trying to distract from that...with process stories.

 

I also know that a whipping is coming, and I know when and where it's going to be. All that's left to do is break out the tailgate gear.

 

Rich stuff? It's a treasure trove. Especially the "fear" thing. I'll be using that quote above all others, for a year at least.

Edited September 25, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

OC, Powerline has been running a series of these articles, counting down to the IPCC report Friday.

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 2

 

One of the leading talking points of the climateers, repeated more often than the rosary in the Vatican, is the factoid that “97 percent of scientists agree” that human-caused climate change is real. As I’ve noted before, the only surprise is that the number isn’t 99.5 percent, as the question of whether greenhouse gases have a warming effect—all other factors being equal—is uncontroversial.*

 

Of course, all other factors are not equal, which is why IPCC climate science reports are thousands of pages, and why the number of scientists down with the extreme or catastrophic forecasts is much lower. But it turns out if you peel back the original survey behind the “97 percent” claim, you find that the methodology is just as dodgy as the climate models that said we should be about 0.4 degrees warmer than we are by now.

 

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 3, Breaking (Really) Bad Edition

 

Joe Romm, who some environmentalists have called the Joe McCarthy of the climate campaign, has a brilliant satire up right now at ClimateProgress.org (the climate desk of the Center for American Progress). I can’t do any better than to just let you take in the Swiftian brilliance of his piece entitled, “Will Breaking Bad Have a ‘Koch Brothers Ending?’” (I swear, I’m not making this up.)

 

 

With the finale of AMC’s acclaimed series just two episodes away, the question on everyone’s mind remains … Is “Breaking Bad” an allegory for global warming?

 

No, it isn’t. Next question.

 

 

“The show has succeeding in explaining what drives someone to so thoroughly use science for evil,” as io9′s Lauren Davis put it last year. A key theme of the show, she notes:

“Science is like so many other powerful things — money, fame, political power.

In the hands of someone determined to use it for selfish gains, chemistry can bring about evil things.”

And that brings us to the Kochs.

 

Really, the article says that........................... Losers.

 

 

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 4 (Updated)

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 5

[3rdnlng]

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/209993/popular-science-shutters-comment-section-on-its.html#axzz2fwLfFQbv

 

Popular Science magazine has decided to kill the comments section on its website, noting that "comments 'erode the popular consensus' on scientifically validated topics... such as climate change and evolution," writes Derek Thompson, paraphasing the pub's online content director, Suzanne LaBarre. Thompson looks at how other sites handle commenters, noting that PopSci's decision was "like a narrow Supreme Court opinion" -- that is, "case-specific" -- and that comments are both good and bad for online journalism.

 

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/209993/popular-science-shutters-comment-section-on-its.html#ixzz2fwM5XXHB

[KD in CA]

Popular Science magazine has decided to kill the comments section on its website, noting that "comments 'erode the popular consensus' on scientifically validated topics... such as climate change and evolution,"

 

scientifically validated topics??? Jesus !@#$ing Christ. It's just incredible that today we see the exact same hubris and ignorance on display as we did back when 'the earth is flat and the center of the universe' was "scientifically validated".

 

Hey, nothing leads to quality science quite like outlawing discussion and debate!

 

Then again, I guess they call their magazine Popular Science and not Intelligent Science or We Have A !@#$ing Clue Science so I shouldn't be surprised.

Edited September 25, 2013 by KD in CT

[TheMadCap]

I just had the 32 subscriptions company uses cancelled and replaced.

 

Real scientists snicker at Popular Science...

[DC Tom]

http://www.mediapost...l#axzz2fwLfFQbv

 

Popular Science magazine has decided to kill the comments section on its website, noting that "comments 'erode the popular consensus' on scientifically validated topics... such as climate change and evolution," writes Derek Thompson, paraphasing the pub's online content director, Suzanne LaBarre. Thompson looks at how other sites handle commenters, noting that PopSci's decision was "like a narrow Supreme Court opinion" -- that is, "case-specific" -- and that comments are both good and bad for online journalism.

 

Read more: http://www.mediapost...l#ixzz2fwM5XXHB

 

And how do global warming and evolution differ? Here's a hint: you can only "erode the popular consensus" of one of them.

[3rdnlng]

And how do global warming and evolution differ? Here's a hint: you can only "erode the popular consensus" of one of them.

 

You got me Tom. I'm just a speaker of truth, dedicated to crushing the uneducated.

[B-Man]

Global warming believers are feeling the heat

 

On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says.

 

Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”.

 

As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost.

 

At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk.

 

To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed.

 

http://blogs.telegra...eling-the-heat/

[KD in CA]

I've been watching stocks like XXXXXX and wow, they are really taking off! XXXXXX is making its move!

 

 

Note: this post has been edited to protect the public from gatorman's general stupidity.

 

Good call Hogboy. It's down 20% since June and 45% since 2011.

Edited September 26, 2013 by KD in CT

[TakeYouToTasker]

Any chance we can refrain from illegal actions regarding securities on public forums please?

 

Talking up individual stocks (pumping) is illegal. For that reason it should actually be a permanently banable offense.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

Any chance we can refrain from illegal actions regarding securities on public forums please?

 

Talking up individual stocks (pumping) is illegal. For that reason it shod actually be a permanently banable offense.

Call the SEC!!! And "Bannable" has two n's

Edited September 26, 2013 by gatorman

[TakeYouToTasker]

Call the SEC!!! And "Bannable" has two n's

I was hoping you'd be courteous to not just other posters, some of us who work in the securities industry, as well as the board's owners and moderation team, and simply remove the offending post.

 

Apparently that's too much to ask.

Edited September 26, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[meazza]

I was hoping you'd be courteous to not just other posters, some of us who work in the securitis industry, as well as the board's owners and moderation team, and simply remove the offending post.

 

Apparently that's too much to ask.

 

To be fair to him, he's too dumb to realize that he's breaking a law.

[Tiberius]

Any chance we can refrain from illegal actions regarding securities on public forums please?

 

Talking up individual stocks (pumping) is illegal. For that reason it shod actually be a permanently banable offense.

Is it illegal if you do not own the stock?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Is it illegal if you do not own the stock?

Yes. The act of pumping the stock itself is illegal.

[meazza]

Is it illegal if you do not own the stock?

 

Just review the CFA code of ethics.

 

That's punishment enough.

[4merper4mer]

Yes. The act of pumping the stock itself is illegal.

 

It seems to me that law attempts to create an artificial scarcity of stock advice much like copyright laws attempt to do to protect original material. I'm surprised you support one but not another.

[B-Man]

Sorry to interrupt ,

 

 

New report undercuts global warming alarmists.

 

 

 

Climate Countdown: T-Minus 1