Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[notyoueither]

Ugh. Weak. That's all it took for you to Godwinize the thread?

Who, exactly, do the climate alarmists want gassed? And why would they go through this long and convoluted method of gassing a particular segment of the population when they could just do it the relatively straightforward way that Hitler did it?

Are everyone's motives what they say they are?

I don't believe so.

[Lorizael]

If that's standard science, and everything the CRU did is standard, why resist sharing it?

Because scientists need to publish to keep being scientists. Why don't companies share the design specs on their newest products? This is a problem in all sciences, and it's not even remotely unique to climatology. It doesn't, however, indicate that there's any conspiracy going on.

Are everyone's motives what they say they are?

I don't believe so.

Certainly. But if you ask a hundred different people what their motives are, how many of them will have mundane motives (that they may or may not want to hide), and how many of them will be hiding the fact that they want to gas all the Jews?

[HalfLotus]

Ugh. Weak. That's all it took for you to Godwinize the thread?

Who, exactly, do the climate alarmists want gassed? And why would they go through this long and convoluted method of gassing a particular segment of the population when they could just do it the relatively straightforward way that Hitler did it?

Some men desire power. And some of those men have the means, motive, and opportunity to get a lot of it - more than they already have. Lust for power is well documented in history, and powers tends to corrupt.

It is easier to establish and maintain power with fewer people around, hence population reduction, and by invoking "crises", real or imagined, to scare people into giving up their money and liberty - otherwise known as Problem-Reaction-Solution, or the Hegelian Principle. Fear works. These particular ideas are not disputed. Whether they are employed currently is, however.

As I noted earlier in the thread, a very influential think tank, The Club of Rome, had a very serious discussion and published a book called The First Global Revolution. In that book, smart men in the employ of rich and powerful men, Rockefellers among others, stated:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

The book states that the "enemy" could be real or invented. They then published Limits to Growth some years later, which was a rallying cry for a generation of eco-lovers. The "green" revolution can be traced over several generations now. If you doubt the influence of Rockefellers and their ilk, or of think tanks like The Club of Rome, which Al Gore is a member, I would strongly disagree. We're seeing it right now, when we have world leaders secretly and overtly plotting world government to the tune of "Saving the Planet".

It is a scam that is too big for most people to believe, and that's partly why it works. Gaia worship is an incredibly effective tool of propaganda since you can invoke "Mother Earth", and protecting our planet, and so forth.

When I was young, science textbooks talked about a potential future Ice Age catastrophe since were still in the "Little Ice Age" not too long ago. That turned out to be wrong.

Then a few years later, I was told be afraid of the Ozone catastrophe. That turned out to be a dud.

Not to mention the numerous non-environmental calamities that have been tossed at me by the media and the powers that be (nuclear holocaust, Malthusian crap, Islamo-fascists, blah, blah, blah).

But here I am, older and wiser, and none of those catastrophes occurred. So as the saying goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and I'm a "****ing moron".

[KrazyHorse]

at HalfLotus' claim that ozone depletion due to atmospheric CFCs was also some sort of hoax.

[HalfLotus]

That's not what I said, nor I do I think that. The issue is whether or not it would be a catastrophe and that mankind was in mortal danger. Those predictions turned out to be very wrong.

[KrazyHorse]

Can you please provide references to these catastrophic predictions? How would these predictions have been affected by the fact that WE ACTUALLY DID REDUCE CFC EMISSIONS GREATLY?

[HalfLotus]

Nice duck and weave. Caught lying? Demand "references". Hahaha.

[KrazyHorse]

Caught lying? What the **** are you smoking, you moron? You claim that global warming is some sort of hoax, then you refer to ozone depletion in support of your claim. I laugh at your obviously implied claim that ozone depletion was some sort of hoax as well, you change your tune and I'm the one who's lying? You're a ****ing idiot, and may well be clinically insane.

[Lorizael]

Speaking of lies...

As I noted earlier in the thread, a very influential think tank, The Club of Rome, had a very serious discussion and published a book called The First Global Revolution. In that book, smart men in the employ of rich and powerful men, Rockefellers among others, stated:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

The rest of the paragraph is...

In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attributes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Which would seem to indicate that the Club of Rome was not intending to make global warming the enemy. Instead, they seemed to be implying that human behavior is harmful which, well, is kind of true. We do tend to kill a lot of people for various reasons.

The book states that the "enemy" could be real or invented.

I'm guessing this is the section you're talking about.

The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.

Oops. Turns out the book is just musing on what past states have done when faced with political problems.

They then published Limits to Growth some years later, which was a rallying cry for a generation of eco-lovers.

Lie. The Limits to Growth was their first publication and came out in 1972. The First Global Revolution was published in 1991.

If you doubt the influence of Rockefellers and their ilk, or of think tanks like The Club of Rome, which Al Gore is a member, I would strongly disagree.

Really? Al Gore's a member? Not according to their website. He's not a full member, associate member, honorary member, or any other kind of member. So what kind of member is he? There's no mention of the Club of Rome in Gore's wikipedia page, nor a mention of Al Gore in the Club of Rome's. The only sites that seem to link the two of them together are other conspiracy sites. So, another lie, perhaps?

[Solomwi]

Doctor: "If we don't treat this man's wound, he will bleed out and die."

Wound is treated; man recovers; moons pass.

Lesson taken away by most: treating wounds is good.

Lesson taken away by HalfLotus: DOCTORS LIE AND ARE NOT TO BE TRUSTED!

[DanS]

In fairness to these climate researchers, this type of science was sufficient when they were doing the initial spade work in this field. However, now we have moved very quickly (in the science timescale) to implementing public policy, which requires a more rigorous and expensive brand of science -- more along the lines of drug trials.

[Drake Tungsten]

There's no way to even approach the scientific rigor of double-blind drug trials in the area of climate research.

[DanS]

Then the weight of the findings should be adjusted accordingly.

[BlackCat]

Because scientists need to publish to keep being scientists. Why don't companies share the design specs on their newest products? This is a problem in all sciences, and it's not even remotely unique to climatology. It doesn't, however, indicate that there's any conspiracy going on.

So you would accept cold fusion as a fact if it was published but data/method wasn't ?

I may be wrong, but isn't a part of the scientific method that other can/cannot reproduce the results ? That's of course no problem if it can be done trough setting up some lab equipment, drilling a new "vostok" hole or build an accelerator a la CERN, but what if it's based on unique data such as historical measurements ? How do you reproduce them ?

CRU actually have a problem about their science when they deny others acces to their data since they are unique.

About the conspiracy scheme, well, the most realistic is probably money, ego and "scientific fame" (Piltdown Man).

[KrazyHorse]

There's no way to even approach the scientific rigor of double-blind drug trials in the area of climate research.

This is true.