Climategate 'hide the decline' explained

[RoyDalParticipant]

Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

I would have gotten an “F” for any lab report in which I did this to my data. In chem class, they called it “dry labbing.” In physics, they called it “faking.”
Actually, this would have been grounds for kicking me out of the course altogether, while an “F” on one lab report would have been letting me off lightly.

Maybe things are different for tenured professors, but they should not be.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[stopmockingmanParticipant 441]

An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate
We never have amendments to any stories published by media.
Never any retrospective thoughts at all. You have to search for answers yourself.
Keep the masses confused, stupid, easy to control.
In other related news newsflash this
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/charlie-sheen-tells-kim-kardashian-4927699

[stopmockingmanParticipant 441]

An inconvenient truth, Al Gore Exposed by Lord Monckton Climategate

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3725]

Oh for gods sake. I served on a research ship with some of the worlds top atmospheric and oceanographic scientists. Nearly all of whom, by the way, were quite conservative free market capitalists who liked to go flying on the weekends and drive SUVs. If ANY of them could come up with credible evidence that the additional GIGATONS of CO2 and equivalents we’re s~~~ting into the atmosphere had no negative effect whatsoever on our planet, any one of them would happily have claimed their Nobel prize and all the fame, fortune, and high payed speaker circuit gigs that go with it.

None of them disputed that we’re f~~~ing up the planet. To them it was obvious and I personally helped gather the data they work with. Please understand that I love my gas burning engines and coal fired electricity and all the s~~~ that comes with it and would LOVE to be able to say all the crap we’re dumping is harmless.

It isn’t and there’s no conspiracy.

I honestly would prefer to ignore stupid s~~~ like this, but in case there are actual intelligent and well read MGTOWs or potential MGTOWs out there, someone should show them we’re not all scientifically illiterate kooks. And yes, I’ve read MANY so called scientific refutations of man made climate change, and find them all to be basically retarded at best, and outright fabrications at worst.

Again understand I really don’t want this stuff to be true, but after I collected the data myself and did the initial processing on it, I know I didn’t fabricate anything. Then the scientists on board would take my data and I got to see comparisons with the same data collected in the same location decades ago and the very noticeable difference between the two. Everything from water temperature, to CO2 content, to ph to about 40 other things and the really obvious conclusion to everyone looking at the data? We’re f~~~ing up the planet.

You would be wise to start asking who benefits from convincing you to think otherwise and how.

And if you really think the UN is conspiring to kill everyone, I can only say this:

Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Anonymous 18]

Old Billy Gates did a TED talk with some fancy equation where people factored in to how much CO2 is produced. Mr Philanthropist said one of the variables in the equation has to be reduced substantially. His vaccination programs and his daddy being big on planned parenthood along with recent CDC gaffe of vaccinations and autism, makes me think.

Mr Gates recently announced $10B vaccination push planned over 10 years to reduce rotavirus (contaminated water) that kills most <1 year olds in Africa. But contaminated water also has E. coli, Shigella, Salmonella, Yersinia, etc that pose risks to these children later in life.

Why not invest in clean water technology? I mean NASA has astronauts recycling their p~~~ as clean water. Oh wait it’s NASA ….

Whenever politicians start to talk about scientific theories, I accept it as 5% truth (there is such a thing climate after all) and rest diluted BS.

[heads-upParticipant 320]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

And if you really think the UN is conspiring to kill everyone, I can only say this:

Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.

Surely that should read “Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be PROVEN to be sheer incompetence”
Because any undesirable outcome from a series of events could be caused by incompetence or the incompetence might be allowed to happen by those who might profit from its outcome.

So I say “never assume that a chaotic outcome for most might not be clever engineering by others.”

[aeragoanParticipant 1186]

Global warming is a billion dollar business..how can we expect them to shut down their false propaganda…they are evil morons who just want control in our lives..

[Lazarus LongParticipant 365]

Biggvs_Dickvs wrote:

Again understand I really don’t want this stuff to be true, but after I collected the data myself and did the initial processing on it, I know I didn’t fabricate anything. Then the scientists on board would take my data and I got to see comparisons with the same data collected in the same location decades ago and the very noticeable difference between the two. Everything from water temperature, to CO2 content, to ph to about 40 other things and the really obvious conclusion to everyone looking at the data? We’re f~~~ing up the planet.

Wow decades. Its not like the planet has been going on for millions of years or anything and decades are less than the blink of an eye in terms of climate. Its amazing how easily swayed by small inconclusive data sets these top scientists are. Almost like they have forgotten how to be objective.

Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self. -Terry Goodkind

[SkeptiskParticipant 3679]

Biggus, when politics starts to influence science, the result(s) should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s not the change itself that makes me ‘skeptic’, but the fact that it’s just an excuse to pull more money from the masses through taxes into the pockets of these “philanthropists”.

And money is the whole reason for this, and we’re f*cked whatever we do, because none of them have any credible plans to reverse or slow down nature.

The best outcome is to adapt to whatever nature cooks up. My opinion is that volcano’s are the biggest culprit, and there isn’t much humanity can do about it.

My focus about nature, and how best to protect what we have is to contain artificial chemicals that act like hormones and plastics contaminants. There’s studies that shows how hormone-likes has pervaded the fauna in the arctics. Results like thinned eggshells due to contaminants. Those are things that I take a lot more seriously than CO2. Because an influx of CO2 usually lead to more growth of flora.

I don’t think I’ve said to much controversial on this topic. Correct me if I’m wrong.

"Expecting to find a decent woman on a dating site is like dumpster diving and expecting to come out with a gourmet meal." Won'tGetFooledAgain

[Author]

Posts