Did I miss the thread about the CRU Fraud?

[BlackCat]

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

KH, you are not annoying, you are someting funny

[HalfLotus]

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.

Wrong about the dates of two book publishings, and maybe wrong about whether or not Al Gore is a member of CoR. You're right, I don't give a ****.

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.

There are many sources which conflate Rockefellers with CoR. But since they don't agree with your view, you disregard them. See, two can play that game.

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.

I read several years ago that abiotic petro had been confirmed by lab experiments. I'll get some links for you.

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

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

I misspoke to a slight degree, but it's a rather petty distinction. You're ignoring the relevant issue - which is that there is a ****load of money being thrown around with respect to AGW, and the potential dwarfs current fossil fuel institutions. We're talking about trillions of dollars in the carbon market, the "green" market, sustainability, etc. This is not disputed, the incentive is there, Big Climate is a big industry.

It doesn't take a maniacal reptilian worldview to understand that politics and science will follow huge sums of money, fame, and research grants.

How often do you pay attention to the thunderously large amount of data regarding climate change that is not disputed?

Quite often, although it's not a particular large amount of data, at least in terms of the quantity of data sets. There are only 3-4 primary global raw temperature data sets, much of which overlap, are ambiguous, and are statistically inconclusive. The surface data is weak in cases, as I sourced above - 90% of surface temp recording stations do not meet siting standards. The rest are value-added or simply copied data fed through nearly identical computer models which do little more than guess.

Climate models based largely on proxy data have been shown to be wrong via observed empirical evidence, as I sourced above. Many of the IPCC models which are heralded as a "robust consensus" rely on the same faulty algorithms, which is why they did not predict the current stagnation in temperature over the last 10 years, nor do they account for the Medieval Warm Period due to C02, or for greenhouse feedback mechanisms as I sourced above.

You have not responded to any of those claims except to attack the messengers and ignore the facts.

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.

So you're the guy who's been inside my head all these years! Again lets stick to the facts, and understand that you are not privy to the vast majority of my cognitive activities.

Although I have provided some relatively detailed descriptions of my thought processes on these matters. You, however, tend to cuddle with your very warm blanket of the majority , or duck into the rapidly crumbling AGW Ivory Tower. Your reasoning seems to be, "Everyone else thinks so, why don't you?"

Conspiracies do happen, a quick review of criminal convictions readily confirms it. But you continue to dispute it. I suppose your objection is to the scale and seriousness of conspiracies. So I cited an example of a pretty big whopper, told collectively by the establishment, which turned out to be a coordinated, conspiratorial lie, and has cost the lives and livelihoods of millions of Iraqi people, and several thousand American people, among others. People are dying right now because of the Iraq WMD conspiracy.

You have not responded to those claims either.

So despite being quite huffy that I address every syllable of your arguments, and even going so far as to create another thread and then insisting that I validate myself to you there, you continue to ignore post after post of relevant information which I put forth.

[Lorizael]

There are many sources which conflate Rockefellers with CoR. But since they don't agree with your view, you disregard them. See, two can play that game.

No no no, I disregard them not because they don't agree with my view (pretty much no one agrees with my view) but because they all agree with each other's views. In order for me to believe this piece of information, I'd need it verified by multiple sources with different biases.

I misspoke to a slight degree, but it's a rather petty distinction. You're ignoring the relevant issue - which is that there is a ****load of money being thrown around with respect to AGW, and the potential dwarfs current fossil fuel institutions. We're talking about trillions of dollars in the carbon market, the "green" market, sustainability, etc. This is not disputed, the incentive is there, Big Climate is a big industry.

It doesn't take a maniacal reptilian worldview to understand that politics and science will follow huge sums of money, fame, and research grants.

According to the CIA World Factbook, electrical machinery, including computers, accounts for over $2.37 trillion of the world's commodities. And that's just their worth in trade value, which says nothing of the money generated within the industry itself. Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that there is a conspiracy within the electronics industry to spread computers with malicious software to a vulnerable and unsuspecting population? Consider projects such as OLPC which force computers onto poor children who don't know any better.

Climate models based largely on proxy data have been shown to be wrong via observed empirical evidence, as I sourced above.

Proxy data is unreliable because it doesn't match empirical data. Got it.

The surface data is weak in cases, as I sourced above - 90% of surface temp recording stations do not meet siting standards.

Empirical data is unreliable. Got it.

Wait, what? Proxy data is unreliable, and empirical data is unreliable, but there is some other source of data, presumably reliable, that we can use to gauge the reliability of proxy and empirical data? And aren't you mad at CRU for replacing proxy data (unreliable) with empirical data (reliable/unreliable??)?

You, however, tend to cuddle with your very warm blanket of the majority , or duck into the rapidly crumbling AGW Ivory Tower. Your reasoning seems to be, "Everyone else thinks so, why don't you?"

You have no idea what I believe with regards to climate change. I've not once voiced my opinion on the matter. As you ask of me, I ask of you: don't presume to know what I think.

Conspiracies do happen, a quick review of criminal convictions readily confirms it. But you continue to dispute it. I suppose your objection is to the scale and seriousness of conspiracies. So I cited an example of a pretty big whopper, told collectively by the establishment, which turned out to be a coordinated, conspiratorial lie, and has cost the lives and livelihoods of millions of Iraqi people, and several thousand American people, among others. People are dying right now because of the Iraq WMD conspiracy.

You have not responded to those claims either.

I have not once denied that conspiracies do happen. I am merely contending that world-spanning conspiracies involving different governments, leaders, cultures, industries, generations, and ideologies are exceedingly unlikely.

So, as the over-quoted Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and poorly cited connections between random businessmen and random think tanks just don't do it for me in the extraordinary evidence category.

[HalfLotus]

I have not once denied that conspiracies do happen. I am merely contending that world-spanning conspiracies involving different governments, leaders, cultures, industries, generations, and ideologies are exceedingly unlikely.

The "coalition of the willing" for Iraq included 48 countries pledging at least verbal support for the cause, according to wikipedia sources. Some are disputed, but it seems like a pretty expansive scam to me.

[Wezil]

Hardly a conspiracy though.

[HalfLotus]

No the CotW was not a conspiracy, it was a result of one. The conspiracy itself occurred among certain US and British officials knowingly spreading a lie about WMD via political, intelligence, and media channels.

It only took a relative few conspirators for a lie to become accepted by a large number of people around the world, and to have disastrous policy consequences.

I think a similar situation is occurring with AGW "alarmism".

[Berzerker]

are heads rolling yet?

[BlackCat]

Well, KH's eyes are rolling, but I think it's their natural state

Must....resisttttt - sorry, can't

[HalfLotus]

are heads rolling yet?

I expect them to soon.

Penn State got a stern letter from the good Senator about Mike "The Trick" Mann's performance in the emails - threats to cut PSU funding will get people's attention.

Also DOE sends out “litigation hold notice” to CRU employees. Nothing to get excited about....unless you're the guy who wrote this email:

“Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years. I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil”

Ho ho ho, heads are gonna roll.