Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[Lorizael]

Lori the language you use belies your stated intent to have a rational discussion.

If I recall correctly, one of your first posts directed at me in this thread called me "bat**** crazy", and you also chose to speak for "everyone here" in that view.

You do not recall correctly. I use my language very carefully, and except in a few heated moments in which I've lost my temper, I never directly insult posters.

My post was an attempt to inform you why many posters here believe you to be, as I put it, bat**** crazy. My own opinion on the matter is inconsequential.

The whole point of that post (and video) was to demonstrate that believing in wild conspiracy theories as opposed to more mundane theories is, generally speaking, a far less rational and sensible thing to do. Conspiracy theories nearly always fail to be rational because the subject of conspiracy theories (NWO, Illuminati, reptilian aliens) can be substituted freely without adversely affecting the quality of the theory. That is to say, when variables in a theory are interchangeable, it usually means that the variables are not properly defined.

As far as I can tell, you're one of the many name-calling trolls and majority-rules circle-jerkers here at Poly, so I'll ignore your posts for the most part.

This really couldn't be further from the truth. If you knew anything of my posting history here, you'd probably conclude that I'm far crazier than you are. While you may believe there's some silly worldwide conspiracy to control the planet, I want to be be the goddamn conspiracy.

I do want to acknowledge a mistake that I made in a previous post which you pointed out, that Limits to Growth was published after First Global Revolution. That was not a lie as you stated, in a presumption of my intent to deceive, I was simply wrong.

Oh, I'm well aware of the fact that you were simply wrong and not lying. But here's the thing. First, you accused KH of lying when he had not even made verifiable claims about anything. That is, it was impossible for him to have been lying. Secondly, the fact that you were wrong about this means that it's quite possible that you're wrong about a whole host of other things. And finally, that was the least damning false claim you made, and you've still yet to defend any of your other claims.

[KrazyHorse]

Why are you bothering with him? HL just claims that everything's a conspiracy. BC's arguments are on the surface more logical, but in actuality he's just engaging in mindless shotgun quoting.

[BlackCat]

Unless this nutcase/meteorologist is peddling grandiose conspiracy theories, your post has nothing at all to do with mine.

Well, I just thought the baby needed a little nursing .

Some would say that the guy is purporting conspiracy theories since he's questioning IPCC climate modelling by using simpler ways to do it.

[BlackCat]

BC's arguments are on the surface more logical, but in actuality he's just engaging in mindless shotgun quoting.

The first part must have been hard to write.

About mindless quoting, rest assured, if that was my goal, I could easily send this thread above 500 posts in no time

[HalfLotus]

Lori that is some creative reasoning to justify your false accusation of lying.

First, you accused KH of lying when he had not even made verifiable claims about anything.

He said that I claimed the Ozone scare to be "a hoax", which I didn't, and was verifiable in my post right above his.


"wild conspiracy theories"

Simply calling it "wild" doesn't make it so. Conspiracies happen.

There are thousands of criminal conspiracy convictions every year all over the world. There are small-scale conspiratorial deceptions like accounting fraud. There are large-scale conspiratorial deceptions such as WMD in Iraq. edit: The AP "review" of the CRU emails actually described it in the same language, "With us or against us."! Not scientific, and not rational.

Conspiracies are generally carried out by people seeking money and power, and with a relatively small number of corrupted or misled people in media, science, politics, etc. It doesn't take a lot of people to fool a lot of people in the age of mass media.

The evidence of political machinations in connection with global warming are aptly documented. My account of it was brief and in some cases incorrect, it has been a few years since I've studied this topic in detail, so my details are fuzzy. A better resource would be Green Agenda.

Some "greens" openly admit that AGW deception isn't wrong! The reasoning being that even if AGW is wrong, we're still moving mankind into a better "moral" direction (per their views) by limiting fossil fuel use, lessening pollution, "sustainability", etc.

And as I noted a few posts back, the founding director of a climate center at East Anglia, where CRU is located, subscribes to the same type of socio/political/scientific views. i.e. That the climate change "crisis" can be used and adapted as a driver for unrelated social, political, and economic change in the world. Sounds to me like scaring people into doing things they wouldn't normally agree to. It is dishonest, to say the least.

The CRU emails indicate a concerted and organized effort to deceive in order to meet political ends. And when you look at the issue closely, the widely cited "consensus" of a huge number of scientists really isn't much of a consensus, and doesn't involve a whole lot of climate scientists studying the issue directly.

The IPCC itself is obviously enormously influenced by political and monetary factors, and has big carrots on big sticks to the tune of many trillions of dollars being moved around based on the issue of "Climate Change".

[Lorizael]

The evidence of political machinations in connection with global warming are aptly documented. My account of it was brief and in some cases incorrect, it has been a few years since I've studied this topic in detail, so my details are fuzzy. A better resource would be Green Agenda.

How can you possibly believe in something if (1) your belief is extremely removed from what is generally accepted to be true, (2) you don't fully understand what it is you believe, (3) you're wrong about important details concerning what you believe, and (4) your only source for information about what you believe is clearly partisan?

[KrazyHorse]

The first part must have been hard to write.

Not really. You're not technically insane. Just not very bright.

[BlackCat]

Not really. You're not technically insane. Just not very bright.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd have to respect you to get annoyed at that post.

[HalfLotus]

(1) The number of people who believe a certain view doesn't affect me a whole lot. I can think for myself. A lot of scientists said we were approaching an ice age not too long ago...didn't turn out so accurate.

(2) Not sure what you're referring to.

(3) Again, not sure. I was wrong about the chronology of two books published, but that doesn't seem terribly important.

(4) I've linked quite a few relevant sources in this thread, so I don't know why you would suggest I have "only" one. My web browser history for the past week has several hundred sites concerning climate change.

As far as partisan, I don't recall that the Green Agenda promoted any particular political party, can you show where that is the case?

[Lorizael]

(1) The number of people who believe a certain view doesn't affect me a whole lot. I can think for myself. A lot of scientists said we were approaching an ice age not too long ago...didn't turn out so accurate.

By itself, the fact that a large number of people believe something is not relevant. But when a large number of people believe something and your beliefs about the same thing are wrong, you might want to consider the mainstream view.

(2) Not sure what you're referring to.

You said you haven't studied the subject in depth in years. If it's a dynamic subject, this means you don't fully understand it.

(3) Again, not sure. I was wrong about the chronology of two books published, but that doesn't seem terribly important.

You were also wrong about Al Gore, Rockefeller, abiogenic petroleum, the financial weight of various climate-related industries, and the meaning of the cherry-picked quotes from The First Global Revolution. These are rather important factual errors on your part.

(4) I've linked quite a few relevant sources in this thread, so I don't know why you would suggest I have "only" one. My web browser history for the past week has several hundred sites concerning climate change.

As far as partisan, I don't recall that the Green Agenda promoted any particular political party, can you show where that is the case?

Partisan does not necessarily mean that you associate with one particular political party. It means you're biased, prejudiced, or dogmatic. The Green Agenda very clearly believes in a climate conspiracy, and the other sources from which you've culled your factoids lean in that direction, too. Your information sources are unreliable and one-sided, and yet you somehow use them as a foundation for a belief about the entire world.

[HalfLotus]

By itself, the fact that a large number of people believe something is not relevant. But when a large number of people believe something and your beliefs about the same thing are wrong, you might want to consider the mainstream view.

Which of my views is wrong and why? Your appeals to authority and majority are weak. And that video, while interesting, didn't quite convince me.

You said you haven't studied the subject in depth in years. If it's a dynamic subject, this means you don't fully understand it.

I have followed the subject, though not to the degree I did when I first arrived my conclusions. The information I've seen since then has not convinced me otherwise. And I have followed the issue very closely in past weeks; The CRU scandal, among other events (see "office with a policy of hiring only pro-AGW employees"), seem to validate my views.

You were also wrong about Al Gore, Rockefeller, abiogenic petroleum, the financial weight of various climate-related industries, and the meaning of the cherry-picked quotes from The First Global Revolution. These are rather important factual errors on your part.

Here is mainstream news outlet which says Al Gore was a member. That might be wrong, whether he's a member or not is not a significant issue in the larger picture.

The Rockefeller connections to AGW are pretty extensive.

I posted earlier about the economic potential of the carbon market, and provided a link. You can track it down, it's not far.

I disagree with you about abiogenic petro, and about the FGR quotes. Shall we go further off topic and discuss them? I suspect we are not in danger of moderator action.

Partisan does not necessarily mean that you associate with one particular political party. It means you're biased, prejudiced, or dogmatic. The Green Agenda very clearly believes in a climate conspiracy, and the other sources from which you've culled your factoids lean in that direction, too. Your information sources are unreliable and one-sided, and yet you somehow use them as a foundation for a belief about the entire world.

A big reason the Green Agenda was convincing for me, aside from the facts of the matter, was that the author was previously an ecological professional, trained in science, who encountered first-hand the silliness of UN environmental regulations, and did some research which changed his entire world view despite being trained to think otherwise. That's pretty convincing in my view. Here is his "about the author" page. Again I would say that the facts weigh more heavily, but his story is interesting.

And again you purport to know all of my sources of information, when you obviously don't. I have posted links to professional climate scientists with PhDs who agree with my view, and to several publications which are accepted and "mainstream" which you regard as more trustworthy, so your characterization of my "sources" is not entirely accurate.

Again your language is suspect. "Culling factiods"? Whether you agree with me or not, I have provided far more relevant and on topic substance, with sources, to this thread than you have. You seem very keen on insulting my worldview, which is not the topic of this thread. However, I will continue to indulge.

[Lorizael]

And I have followed the issue very closely in past weeks; The CRU scandal, among other events (see "office with a policy of hiring only pro-AGW employees"), seem to validate my views.

This is another reason why most conspiracies are wrong; they rely on confirmation bias. How often do you pay attention to the thunderously large amount of data regarding climate change that is not disputed?

Here is mainstream news outlet which says Al Gore was a member. That might be wrong, whether he's a member or not is not a significant issue in the larger picture.

That outlet also lists Gates and Carter as members, but again, only skeptic sites seem to indicate that this is true. As far as it being important whether or not Gore is a member, that's not the issue. The issue is that you've been wrong multiple times but don't seem to care. Whether or not you have the facts right doesn't seem to have an affect on what you actually believe.

The Rockefeller connections to AGW are pretty extensive.

No no no. You said Rockefeller was heavily involved in The Club of Rome, not just AGW stuff. And again, the only evidence to suggest this is the case is that the first Club of Rome meeting was held in a hotel owned by the Rockefeller Foundation.

I posted earlier about the economic potential of the carbon market, and provided a link. You can track it down, it's not far.

Yes, the potential. But what you initially said was:

...far more money is now flowing toward "sustainable" tech and the carbon market.

But this is demonstrably wrong. Again, you don't seem to care when the facts don't support your position.

I disagree with you about abiogenic petro, and about the FGR quotes. Shall we go further off topic and discuss them? I suspect we are not in danger of moderator action.

Really? You sure about that? You said:

...new science confirms the decades old Russia-Ukranian theories of abiotic oil, and our gradeschool lessons about dinosaur guts turning into cans of WD40 look fairly silly in comparison.

And I said:

Not true at all. Some studies have indicated that abiogenic petroleum might be possible, which is a long, long way from saying that the world's supply of oil comes from deep underground and not from ancient biomass.

Let's be clear here. Our disagreement is not about whether abiogenic origin is true or not; our disagreement is over whether new science has disproved the current model. I very recently read studies discussing the possibility that abiogenic petroleum may be possible. That's all I've read. If you've read studies "confirming ... abiotic oil" and making current models "look fairly silly in comparision," please show me.

A big reason the Green Agenda was convincing for me, aside from the facts of the matter, was that the author was previously an ecological professional, trained in science, who encountered first-hand the silliness of UN environmental regulations, and did some research which changed his entire world view despite being trained to think otherwise. That's pretty convincing in my view. Here is his "about the author" page. Again I would say that the facts weigh more heavily, but his story is interesting.

Please, stick to the facts. If that was a big reason for you, then you should also believe pretty much everything BK says to be true. He used to be an atheist, after all. In fact, you should believe all born-agains.

Whether you agree with me or not, I have provided far more relevant and on topic substance, with sources, to this thread than you have.

Yes, but you've failed to actually analyse any of the substance you present. You simply accept it as true (or at the very least, damning and suspicious) if it already coincides with your worldview.

[KrazyHorse]

Is this why you're on probation at your job?

[BeBMan]

No cold war = global warming. It's not that hard to understand.