T1B

Felix wrote:

Left Seater wrote: LTS takes the government sponsored, government paid for climate change "scientists" as solid gold fact.

employment of climate scientists is split about equal between the government, educational entities and the private sector......if they're in it for the money, they're not doing very well because most are Phd's and making less than $100k/yr.

And where are educational entities getting their funding? Oh, that's right, the Feds. The next largest percentage comes from state government. According to the AAU which is an Association of 63 leading public and private universities, over 60% of their funding comes from the Feds. This doesn't count State funding, nor does it include any of the Federal or State monies spent on tuition which also indirectly supports research.

No, fakeseater, the funding to the deniers is what's been confirmed. The Koch brothers have established and funded a variety of propaganda organizaions--including Americans For Prosperity, Citizens for a Sound Economy, The Cato Institute, Freedom Partners, and several others. And all of these are paid to promote the lie that Climate Change either isn't real, or that it isn't caused by human activity. it's what Goebbels called "the Big Lie" and you know its method, I'm sure.

Here's what's really going on as far as funding The Lie...

The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an analysis released Friday afternoon.

The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Your tedious and childish repetition of cat call and smears is typical of the Hannity/Limpdick foundation of your "thought."

As for the 9/11 coverup, we notice you're absolutely cold-cocked as usual as to actually refuting or even acknowledging the mountain of evidence undermining the official story. What a hack.

And as for this non-entity ....

matteric wrote: Like I said, you're not bright.

You can try and derail the point at hand... but, it only shows what an idiot you truly are.


Pssst... you responded to a bot/LTS.

That can NEVER be understated.


Too funny

Anyone know who or what this is? First it's accompanied by a pic of a hottie with outrageous natural tits. And then it's just disappeared--but still spewing snips. I know it won't step up. Or dare to meet me in S.F. Or what?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The Koch brothers have established and funded a variety of propaganda organizaions

Uhm, you realize that the Cult of Climate spends more in a year promoting their (PROVEN UNTRUE) propaganda that the entire net worth of the Koch's, right?

Or what?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The Koch brothers have established and funded a variety of propaganda organizaions

Uhm, you realize that the Cult of Climate spends more in a year promoting their (PROVEN UNTRUE) propaganda that the entire net worth of the Koch's, right?

Or what?

Bullshit, dins, and your charge is typical Denialist catechism. What, do you claim that all funding for all scientific bodies which study the climate is somehow from a "cult"? You're a total clown. But let's play along and pretend that what you're saying is true. If so, then the massive Denialist funding by the Kochs and similar ilk are really just a public service/ Just an expensive though patriotic effort to enlighten the public as to the "cult's" nefarious efforts? Really?

And so the various outright propagandic agencies--like Americans For prosperity, the Cato Institute, etc..-- are really just noble and necessary valves of truth? Are you seriously drunk in the daytime ...again?

You're the one that constantly promotes that whichever side of an issue spends the most, that side must be wrong. It's your entire argument about just about everything...

until it's pointed out you're wrong, then your mantra takes a 180.

Huh? Can you actually address a topic, or does everything just wander into driveling personal attacks?

Now...are the variety of propaganda organizations funded directly by the Kochs (and others) simply good faith--and very expensive--efforts on their part to combat the "cult's" massive efforts to mislead the world's citizenry? Are the Kochs really heroes for spending hundreds of millions of their hard-earned dollars to fight the lies and so bring truth and actual scientific education to the world?

C'mon, your just getting a good comic stride going...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What, do you claim that all funding for all scientific bodies which study the climate is somehow from a "cult"?

You used the word cult with government activities surrounding 9/11. Funny enough, the vast majority of scientific funding comes from government. So if we are to accept your word, you are the one calling the funding source for global warming a cult.

Typical fakery from fakeseat. I've never used the word "cult" in suggesting who was behind the false-fire 9/11 attacks. In fact I've suggested clearly a premise of Responsible Agnosticism whereby we cannot in fact attribute blame or motive, but only that the official story doesn't withstand basic scrutiny --on any level.

So..as far as the Kochs spending hundreds of millions of dollars in direct propaganda efforts, well this is a pretty clear indication of their motives. How do you defend such massive and concerted efforts to pay "legitimate scientists" to parrot their Denialism? As for the government's supposed motivation in what you're suggesting are similar efforts, what is it? What is this preposterous conspiracy you're insisting is real?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:As for the government's supposed motivation in what you're suggesting are similar efforts, what is it? What is this preposterous conspiracy you're insisting is real?

"“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process."

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

""The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out."

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

Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

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

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

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

http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/0 ... aper-says/

HIDE THE DECLINE!!!!!!!!

BTW -- There isn't one peer-reviewed paper published in recent years that says the warming hasn't slowed or stopped altogether of late.

We know what that means, per the Rules of the Cult, right?

100% scientific consensus!!!!!

Or does that ridiculous methodology only work one way?

100% > 97%

But it's nice we have an actual consensus now.

Sure, we know what that scientist meant. He felt the truth of the overall situation mandated him fudging some numbers up front. However, his basic thrust--that which he was making public--has been verified over and over again. His was a single situation concerning a single study. But even though it was an admittedly less than forthright process, it doesn't in any way suggest an overall--or even specific--agenda or monetary scheme.

The Kochs, meanwhile, don't bother to hide at all the fact of their outright paid shill "expert panel" propaganda efforts. And their monetary motives are quite obvious.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52758/50- ... or-the-un/


If you're predictions don't come true, just lie and say you never made them (if you don't know how the internet works, it sounds like a good idea.

Dins hit on this issue back when I posted most of those same comments earlier in this thread.

The problem with these government funded "scientists" is they got caught once and then investigated themselves and promptly proclaimed the issue was fixed. Then just as quickly more emails proving lies and cover ups were found and they investigated themselves again.

Just imagine LTS' outrage if the government admitted to lying about part of the 9/11 events, but only to make a point and it didn't change anything.

This is exactly what the government funded global warming crowd did. Where is the outrage LTS?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And..that's the fake tits chick?

I don't have fake tits yet. That's in May. They look great in a bra though.

molly wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And..that's the fake tits chick?

I don't have fake tits yet. That's in May. They look great in a bra though.

Hmmm... should I put money in my kid's college fund, or get some fake tits which will look as good as they do on every other chick on the wrong side of 40? Hmmmmm, let me think on this.


Parent of the fucking year.

Left Seater wrote:Dins hit on this issue back when I posted most of those same comments earlier in this thread.

The problem with these government funded "scientists" is they got caught once and then investigated themselves and promptly proclaimed the issue was fixed. Then just as quickly more emails proving lies and cover ups were found and they investigated themselves again.

Just imagine LTS' outrage if the government admitted to lying about part of the 9/11 events, but only to make a point and it didn't change anything.

This is exactly what the government funded global warming crowd did. Where is the outrage LTS?

So..you're insisting that this is a total fraud? A massive scheme to ...get a lot of money...?....and ..what..?
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/climate/

Look, you can cite that one case, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the overall conclusions by the non-shill experts. You seem to just ignore the plain fact of the Kochs having established a large organization of propaganda groups--all named and cited, along with dollar amounts. It's as though you can't accept that these plutocratic industrialists--who openly champion "Libertarian" policy--are in fact the ONLY source of "expert panel" denial.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

One name says it all -- Dr. Richard Lindzen.

The most knowledgeable climate scientists who ever lived. Who thinks the entire premise is hogwash.

So, LTS -- are all these MIT Scientists the end-all, be-all of scientific authority, or only when it suits your purpose?

Of course, the Cult will tell you that he doesn't know what he's talking about... as they enter HIS FORMULAS (solar forcing, etc) into their hilariously inaccurate "computer models."

All this gave me a head ache. My father always taught me one thing about politics ....FOLLOW THE MONEY....and you'll catch the crooks. Or was that Ronald Reagan?

Never mind, I want to see Molly's tits before and after pics.

And why do you believe in his preeminence? Is he being paid a boatload of dough like the other "experts"?

Why do you argue out of both sides of your mouth?

9/11 - the government won't release videos etc of the cameras surrounding the pentagon

Global warming - it is ok that the government and their paid scientist won't release their data



9/11 - scientists, professionals, pilots etc have questions regarding the events of the day, this sheds doubt regardless of their agenda or affiliation

Global Warming - any questions regarding the science no matter the source or validity are to be dismissed immediately and the person asking the question attacked


9/11 - a small group of people orchestrated the attacks for their own personal gain

Global Warming - these people are above reproach and have nothing to gain and would never think of profiting from this "crisis"



9/11 - no need to make any changes because this was a fake attack despite the evidence

Global Warming - despite none of the dire warnings coming true or none of the models proving accurate even when back loading past data we must act today to save ourselves



Have you been consistent or honest with yourself even once?

Jerkovich wrote:All this gave me a head ache. My father always taught me one thing about politics ....FOLLOW THE MONEY....and you'll catch the crooks. Or was that Ronald Reagan?

Never mind, I want to see Molly's tits before and after pics.

No, Reagan was caught, of course, and his administration had the greatest number of indictments, convictions, and forced resignations--and the fraudulent old fossil ended his term in a witness box, lying under oath. And while he's dead and gone--not a minute too soon--the nation is left with his toxic legacy of "trickle down" economics. An absolute criminal in every sense of the word.

Left Seater wrote:Why do you argue out of both sides of your mouth?

9/11 - the government won't release videos etc of the cameras surrounding the pentagon

Global warming - it is ok that the government and their paid scientist won't release their data



9/11 - scientists, professionals, pilots etc have questions regarding the events of the day, this sheds doubt regardless of their agenda or affiliation

Global Warming - any questions regarding the science no matter the source or validity are to be dismissed immediately and the person asking the question attacked


9/11 - a small group of people orchestrated the attacks for their own personal gain

Global Warming - these people are above reproach and have nothing to gain and would never think of profiting from this "crisis"



9/11 - no need to make any changes because this was a fake attack despite the evidence

Global Warming - despite none of the dire warnings coming true or none of the models proving accurate even when back loading past data we must act today to save ourselves



Have you been consistent or honest with yourself even once?

Here's the data, you total cowardly fraud.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/


now...where's the fucking pentagon videos?

How the fuck do you look in the mirror?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Here's the data, you total cowardly fraud.
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

No, it isn't.

Once again, the people who altered that data didn't understand what a "cached page" on the internet was.


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... year-2000/


Who are those guys quoted as saying that there was no warming, and the trend seemed to be that of cooling?

Why, none other than James Hansen and Phil Jones.

What changed since then? Were they lying then, or now?

I'll give you a hint -- George Soros gave James Hansen a very large cash gift in the interim (and got caught doing it).


It is a FACT that data was altered (you'll never guess which direction). So now that they've destroyed much of the real historic data, this truly has become junk science.

Both graphs were published by NASA/NOAA, and are supposed to represent the exact same data in the exact same years... yet something changed...

why?

Look, you dilweed, you're desperately clinging to anything. Climate Change is hardly limited to an overall warming. It's a lot of crucial factors all of which of course we're responsible. What exactly is it you fear? That Chevron won't continue their record profits? That the Kochs won't press through their "Libertarian" agenda? What exactly are you about? On any level?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What exactly are you about?

I'm a huge fan of science. Actual, real science -- which doesn't involve altering data or destroying research.



From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:What exactly are you about?

I'm a huge fan of science. Actual, real science

Okay....so..?
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Can you begin to even directly discuss ONE part of this? Of course not. Just like you can't begin to support ONE part of the official 9/11 story. Or fucking what?

You squiggle, you squirm, like a desperate worm seeking heat of deep soil. But it's your soiled Depends mindset that 's your most debilitating feature. Yer a bore, in short. No game, no nothing. Sheesh!

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Okay....so..?

So a propaganda piece that cites ALTERED DATA is relevant to science... how?

Once observed data was altered (again, this is IRREFUTABLE), "science" went out the window.

The CO2 levels slowly but steadily have increased over the last 15 years -- the temperature didn't (and seems to be cooling by all observations that don't involve altered data). So, we know FOR FACT there isn't a direct correlation. Time for the Cult to roll out there next Theory of Settled Science, since the old one is clearly wrong, and no amount of ad hominem can change that.

Anyone who has responded to LTS after it was outed by m2 earlier in the thread ... ain't very bright.


Too funny

All you Bay Area bunghole buddies are already "out."

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:
employment of climate scientists is split about equal between the government, educational entities and the private sector.....

Link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

click on each of their names and you can see who they're employed by

Left Seater wrote:And where are educational entities getting their funding? Oh, that's right, the Feds. The next largest percentage comes from state government. According to the AAU which is an Association of 63 leading public and private universities, over 60% of their funding comes from the Feds. This doesn't count State funding, nor does it include any of the Federal or State monies spent on tuition which also indirectly supports research.

and? you seem to be implying that a climatologists employment has something to do with statistical data.....I can assure you it doesn't....facts are what facts are.....

Dinsdale wrote:

Both graphs were published by NASA/NOAA, and are supposed to represent the exact same data in the exact same years... yet something changed...

why?

I see your still rolling out that 4 year old graph produced by Tony Heller, who holds a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Masters' Degree in electrical engineering from Rice University...he's not a climatologist and has no expetise in climatology.....

here's an interesting website about Tony.....

http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnota ... press.com/

Felix wrote:

Left Seater wrote:And where are educational entities getting their funding? Oh, that's right, the Feds. The next largest percentage comes from state government. According to the AAU which is an Association of 63 leading public and private universities, over 60% of their funding comes from the Feds. This doesn't count State funding, nor does it include any of the Federal or State monies spent on tuition which also indirectly supports research.

and? you seem to be implying that a climatologists employment has something to do with statistical data.....I can assure you it doesn't....facts are what facts are.....

I know it can be hard to follow along so here is a quick recap:

I pointed out to LTS that global warming alarmists are funded mostly by government.

You came back with your thirds comment

I then pointed out how most Univ funding was also government based therefore my original comment was correct that government funds most global warming alarmists


That brings us to your comment above. Great facts are facts are facts. On that we all agree, until the said facts validity are brought into question. This is exactly what has happened with the global warming crowd. We know facts were altered to make a better/stronger point. We know raw data/facts were destroyed so as not to be available for public consumption. We know prediction models can't back into known outcomes with actual real data points pointing them to that outcome, yet we are told to believe them.

So slow down on your facts are facts. They are when everyone gets to see them and dissect them, not because a government paid scientist tells us they are.

Felix wrote:I see your still rolling out that 4 year old graph produced by Tony Heller, who holds a BS in geology from Arizona State University and a Masters' Degree in electrical engineering from Rice University...he's not a climatologist and has no expetise in climatology.....

Jeebus fuggin Christo, you people Just. Can't. Help. It.

You and the rest of the Cult are on board with Felcho (funny in and of itself). As time goes by, you have less and less actual science to back your disproven stance up, so you (the entire Cult, every last one of you, including the "leaders") ALWAYS dig in and go for ad hominem... go ahead and ask an attorney how that works out.

And indeed -- facts are facts are facts... who cares if the Easter Fucking Bunny made the .jpg?

THE GRAPHS WERE FUCKING PUBLISHED BY NASA. Not up for discussion.

The funny part is, their "scientists" must have been absent from science class the days they were discussing proper graphing techniques and trend lines (and must have missed the days when they were told not to alter observed data to support desired results).


But, why don't we run with your ad hominem attacks on any facts you don't agree with, which invariably leads to your ilk busting out the "but he's not a climate scientist," shall we?

You know who else "isn't a climate scientist"?

Uhhh... the guy who runs the IPCC... you know, the folks who are in charge of the sham? Matter of fact, he has similar credentials(very similar) to the guy you just dismissed (for merely citing published data) for lack of what you feel are adequate credentials.

But, that's what the Cult does. A dude reproduces data that are used by the Cult to make their point, and his credentials are dismissed. Yet any loon who went to community college for a year that spouts some whacky theory is held up as a genius.


Simple (not really) question for you and Felcho -- where did the heat go? And don't spout the "into the deep oceans" crap that's A) already been debunked, even by those who have altered data in the past (NASA, but don't put it past them to alter data again, since they've already shown a willingness to do so if Soros pays them enough), and B) so unbelievably stupid that a 5th grader can see the Jupiter-sized hole in the "theory."

Next question -- why are the polar icecaps growing at such an alarming rate, even with an increase in CO2?

While algore predicted we would be ice free this past summer, it's too bad that we aren't gore free instead.

Dinsdale wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:
Okay....so..?

So a propaganda piece that cites ALTERED DATA is relevant to science... how?

Once observed data was altered (again, this is IRREFUTABLE), "science" went out the window.

The CO2 levels slowly but steadily have increased over the last 15 years -- the temperature didn't (and seems to be cooling by all observations that don't involve altered data). So, we know FOR FACT there isn't a direct correlation. Time for the Cult to roll out there next Theory of Settled Science, since the old one is clearly wrong, and no amount of ad hominem can change that.

Bull shit. You are the ones parroting the Koch organizations' droning denials.

As for simply dismissing the actual scientific studies...like this...http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Well you're a total fraud. Where are YOU'Re experts? Oh that's right, you don't have any who aren't directly being paid for their "skeptical" viewpoints. None.


And who the fuck is this?

matteric wrote:Anyone who has responded to LTS after it was outed by m2 earlier in the thread ... ain't very bright.


Too funny

Look, if you want to find how just real I am, why don't we meet up in The City? You know, S.F.? Sure, we can have a beer and then I'll kick the shit out of you just for fun. How 'bout it? Do you actually know the City? Are you in Kansas? Lil' prick.

What, that's your latest dodge? Conflating the scientists at NASA with the unelected neocon contagion of the Chimp 'n Cheney show?

Let's stick to the Denialist position of screaming that any scientific study is some 'government conspiracy." Now this plays right into the basic Tea Bagger position of simplistic anti-government hysterics. Okay..and indeed this makes sense since you guys seem to have absolutely no actual concern for the environment--or for science in general. But look who you've actually got as your most prominent champions...

okay, you know this avowed Creationist (and corporate cheerleader)..


Well here's Inhofe on Climate Change...Well actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous. - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/j ... B3z0z.dpuf

And here's another of your experts..

"I mean, it -- I mean -- and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell."


Now, you're probably thinking "No! our denial contingent isn't just ignorant Christers, there's real scientists!" But no, these so-called "experts' have been matter-of-factly been paid for their skeptical opinions. Doubt it?

Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.


So...you've got nothing, really.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Simple question, don't duck it -- why did NASA ALTER OBSERVED DATA to create a false warming trend?

There is no question "if" they did, the only question is "why?"

That particular study is not nearly as crucial as you're suggesting, first of all. Moreover, it's quite obvious that this so-called scandal is pure FOX News cant...
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... bal-warmi/

Now, what about the fact that you've only got yahoo Creationists and moronic Texas governors as your experts? Please don't tell us that all you've got is the pseudonym "Mr. Goddard" and his e-mails. Please...you can't be so pathetically out of ammo...?... :doh:

Sort of like your Popular Mechanics "science" on the 9/11 falae fire, eh? :wink:

No, pops, I'm kicking your tired asses all over the board. You can't put up anything but some limp-dick FOX bullshit. Meanwhile I've exposed the actaul shill process of Koch funding. Check..and mate in two..