Expatica Community | The Expat Social Network

Forums » International Discussions » International News

Back To Topics

Next Derivatives Scam

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next »

wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 5:33:09 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 13 2010, 04:58 PM) said: > original post
It's not about heresy, it's about the truth. It's about not denying reality. It's about not denying rationality. It's about not denying scientific method. It's about not allowing yourself (as you, and the people who have made this idiotic program have done) to become a tool of large multinational corporations who propagate these memes to spread confusion and lies, thus allowing them to continue raping the planet in pursuit of profit.

You are such a self righteous moron. It is you and the other GW faithful that are being played.

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advi...ap-markets.html

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/...big-investment/

There is a lot of money to made from GW. If nothing else, i hope it will revive the nuclear industry in the US.
lissa0915
- 1443 posts
January 13, 2010 5:33:14 PM CET

Purple Cow's so sweet. So much trust in Government and scientific 'data.' They just can't be wrong!

Wise people question everything. Ignorant people swallow everything being fed to them, even if its rat poison.

In other news- Obama admits that he hasn't brought the country together.
wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 5:36:50 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 13 2010, 05:31 PM) said: > original post
So Wanda and her 'interesting sun spots'. As promised earlier, here is a destruction of that argument.

Sadly for sun worshipers, there is no correlation between solar activity and strong global warming seen during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not been justified, as this peer-reviewed article demonstrates.

Get it correct - "solar activity" not "sun spots".

Can i trust anything that he took from one of the references by Mann, M?

40 years in geological time is a blip - natural variation is the term that James Hirst from the Met used.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 5:43:31 PM CET

Get it correct - "solar activity" not "sun spots".

Oh my good lord, are you really serious Wanda? You don;t think sunspots have something to do with solar activity?? It's a measurement of the energy we receive from the sun. Sun spots don't warm the Earth, solar activity does. The question posed is 'do sunspots affect solar activity'? answer - not enough.

40 years in geological time is a blip - natural variation is the term that James Hirst from the Met used.

I'm sorry but what has geological time got to do with climate?

You are such a self righteous moron.

So, I gave you facts, data, links to peer-reviewed journals.

Wanda gives you ad hominem attacks.
wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 5:57:19 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 13 2010, 05:43 PM) said: > original post
Oh my good lord, are you really serious Wanda? You don;t think sunspots have something to do with solar activity??

sun spots are a subset of solar activity. thus you have restricted my argument, i.e. misrepresented what i have said to fit your canned rebuttal to "sun spots" which is merely one of many phenomena under the "solar activity" umbrella.

did you ever run into venn diagrams anywhere?

Michael Mann was under investigation for scientific fraud by Penn State Univ. Should i trust studies that rely on his work, peer reviewed or not?
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 6:08:51 PM CET

Purple Cow's so sweet. So much trust in Government and scientific 'data.' They just can't be wrong!

has anyone else noticed that lissssa only ever appears when wanda is in deep trouble again? It's almost like they are one and the same person. Like that guy 'Next' whose only function was to agree with everything wanda said.

But i digress.

I don;t trust governments as a rule. However, call me old fashioned but i do trust scientists. That's because - get this - when i'm looking at a subject, (let's say climatology), I like to learn about it from the experts! Y'know, the people who have studied the subject, done the hard yards, written the PhD's The people who know the most about it

Wise people question everything. Ignorant people swallow everything being fed to them, even if its rat poison

Let me get this straight "Lissa" if I learn about climate from climatologists, that makes me ignorant. But if you learn climatology from right-wing blogs, that makes you wise??

Is that really your position?
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 6:14:06 PM CET

sun spots are a subset of solar activity. thus you have restricted my argument, i.e. misrepresented what i have said to fit your canned rebuttal to "sun spots" which is merely one of many phenomena under the "solar activity" umbrella.

So go on then Wanda, explain to us how sunspot activity causes global warming but solar activity (as I have just demonstrated) does not.

I'm all ears.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 6:20:30 PM CET

Michael Mann was under investigation for scientific fraud by Penn State Univ. Should i trust studies that rely on his work, peer reviewed or not?

Stop lying Wanda. Michael Mann is not under investigation for scientific fraud.

This is what Pen state actually said:

"..we will be looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases". They further noted that Mann's research had previously been reviewed and his "results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence"
Deleted Member
- 5427 posts
January 13, 2010 6:21:05 PM CET

lissa0915 (Jan 13 2010, 04:33 PM) said: > original post
So much trust in Government and scientific 'data.'

It wasn't too long ago that I trusted governments ....and scientists and police persons and the pharmaceutical industry and doctors and the judicial system.
I used to have a certain amount of respect for people in postions of authority.
Its so sad that in the last 10 or 20 years many people have(quite rightly so) lost trust in them.
I used to be quite concerned about the environment too but since mainstream politics and media took it up,I got cynical about that as well....
(I saw a bit of Al Gore on the tv the other day and tbh,he doesn't seem quite right in his head either)
I don't think I'll vote for anyone ever again.
There was a documentary on belgian tv the other night about how reliant we are on satellites for everything.The next big war will quite probably be in space.There will be tons and tons more debris floating around up there.

I hope to be getting solar panels on my roof this spring....years ago it would've been cos of the green issue but now its more a case of economic and not hving to be so dependant on energy providers....and the money is more useful(and more of a return) spent on the panels than in the bank. A friend of mine is a solar panel installer. He's a rubbish salesman but I've seen the system up and running and he would never rip me off anyhoos.

Anyway - I prefer to sit on the fence with the climate change thing....
I think its partly due to 'us' but its also being hugely exaggerated by western governments.
I can't really be arsed wading thru all the bumpf to reach a solid opinion(and it seems the experts can't even agree on it...mind you,anyone be an expert these days,I've seen them advertised on the internet for a few hundred dollars) so this year I'll be spending more time researching much more interesting and enjoyable subjects such as live music,women,beer and football....and who did 911.

A rabbi on tv said last night :
Love the stranger.

I'm not religious but I like that.
wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 6:31:14 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 13 2010, 06:20 PM) said: > original post
Stop lying Wanda. Michael Mann is not under investigation for scientific fraud.

This is what Pen state actually said:

"..we will be looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases". They further noted that Mann's research had previously been reviewed and his "results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence"

"was" not "is".

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/...limategate.aspx

If the email dialogue between Michael "hockey stick" Mann and the East Anglia group does not make you wonder, then there is no hope for you.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 6:44:05 PM CET

So you agree he is not a scientific fraud at least. You will however note that at no time did Penn State say they were investigating him for scientific fraud.

But anyway, your attempt to place this particular red herring across our paths has failed catastrophically.

So now back to the debate, go for it Wanda, I'm still waiting....
wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 6:47:53 PM CET

Stephen Schneider:

http://rpuchalsky.home.att.net/sci_env/sch_quote.html#quote

This is reprint where Schneider accuses a journalist of misquoting him. The full quote appears in the article as follows. Schneider claims that he did not utter the bracketed part, but the rest is certainly bad enough.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the
scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the
doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we
are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people
we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context
translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially
disastrous climatic change. To do that we need [Scientists should
consider stretching the truth] to get some broadbased support, to
capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting
loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make
simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves
in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that
means being both."

Should i rely on his input? Should i rely on Mann's hockey stick?

No thanks.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 13, 2010 6:58:39 PM CET

Well I disagree with you and agree entirely with Mann's views. (The hockey stick us holding up just fine by the way.)

So o.k. let's agree to disagree on this point and move on.

Back to the debate.

Sunspots, I'm still waiting.
wanda_2005
January 13, 2010 9:19:46 PM CET

Meet Henrik Svensmark:

Wikipedia for quick and dirty overview:

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

Telegraph Article providing a summary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-warming.html

Polemic from climategate

http://www.climategate.com/henrik-svensmar...e-cloud-mystery

Nir Shaviv appeared in the video Papasutra posted:

Wikipedia overview:

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

Michael Mann and his hockey stick model are a fraud and will be exposed.

I misspoke, by the way, Mann seems to be as of 3 Jan 2010, under investigation for fraud.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...happy-new-year/

snip from the email of the investigator to some of Mann's colleagues:

Hi,
Greetings and best wishes for a prosperous New Year.

After the recent whistleblower revelations of emails between climate researchers and data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, there are on-going investigations into potential fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US. I am assisting interested parties who may have details of fraud in climate research to make contact with the proper authorities, and to share in the rewards paid when the funds are recovered.

There is a lot of money on the table for the person that blows the whistle and provides condemning evidence of the fraud.

I think i am right, and I am patient.
lissa0915
- 1443 posts
January 13, 2010 10:00:51 PM CET

@mr fook-

I don't blame you for not wanting to vote anymore. It's like asking yourself who is the lesser of all evil? I grew tired of the government because of growing up in a military family. You get tired of all the hassle and questions and people pretending to know what is best for you. I think the real good people, the ones who really care, are the ones working for practically nothing volunteering their time or risking their lives in some remote village in foreign lands counseling rape victims or doctors without borders. Their not out to seek fame or fortune or power- just doing the best they can with what they've got.

I think you're right about sitting on the fence with climate controversy, I'll just sit right down next to you. In the meanwhile we can concentrate on some real heroes out there and happy to report there are many- and try to help those who are less fortunate in our own way and what we've got. Maybe it's not alot, but at least we'll be 'doing' and not just making pretty speeches like the doofus VIPs in the world.

You don't have to be religious, you just need a good heart.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 14, 2010 12:02:30 PM CET

Meet Henrik Svensmark:

Wikipedia for quick and dirty overview:

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

Telegraph Article providing a summary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-warming.html

Yes I’ve already dealt with Svensmark in the links I provided on Solar activity and sunspots. Proper climatologists (Svenmsark of course, is no such thing) have already demolished his theories. Which would know had you bothered to actually read the links I posted.

Nir Shaviv appeared in the video Papasutra posted:

Wikipedia overview:

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

Again Wanda, had you bothered to read the links I had provided you would know that the documentary Papasutra posted “The Great Global warming Swindle” has been so badly mauled in the public domain that it has become an embarrassment to your climatewarming-denier industry. It paraded a bunch of non-climatologists telling fibs basically, and also miss-represented the views of one proper climatologist, much to his rage.

Bringing Shaviv (an astrophysicist) back into the argument is simply another of your red-herrings. The fact is, I have posted links here that prove there is no correlation between sunspot activity, solar activity and the recent (40 year old) global warming activity. So you need to address that point rather than providing us to Wiki pages about blokes who are not climatologists.

Michael Mann and his hockey stick model are a fraud and will be exposed.

That’s it? That’s all you got?

You are going to have to do better than that, Wanda. Do you have any kind of written evidence for this statement? If you are going to accuse a guy you should at least provide a scrap of evidence, doncha think?

I misspoke, by the way, Mann seems to be as of 3 Jan 2010, under investigation for fraud.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdel...happy-new-year/

Oh Wanda, you’re losing it. This is the second post you’ve put up alongside the claim that Mann is under investigation by Penn State for scientific fraud. The problem is that neither of these links actually say that.

This link to a piece written by the Daily Telegraph’s increasingly deranged commentator James Delingpole, just says that the well-known far-right nutcase Kent Clizbe* has sent 27 of Mann’s colleagues a threatening and intimidatory Email.

So what? The far-right are thugs – we knew that already.

There is a lot of money on the table for the person that blows the whistle and provides condemning evidence of the fraud.

Given that other scientists totally unconnected with Mann or Penn State have produced papers that support the Hockey stick theory, the chances of scientific fraud are vanishingly small.

I think i am right, and I am patient

You are catastrophically wrong, and it matters not a jot how patient you are.

*Clizbe thinks that The New Your Times is an tool of the KGB and that Obama's speaches deliberately parrot KGB propaganda.

[insert idiotic rolley-eye emoticon here.]
lissa0915
- 1443 posts
January 14, 2010 3:45:30 PM CET

Anyone with half a brain stopped reading Purple Cow's post at: " The far-right are thugs."

Because the "far-left" are not thugs? Delirious and as ignorant as it gets.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 14, 2010 6:34:48 PM CET

Anyone with half a brain stopped reading Purple Cow's post at: " The far-right are thugs."

Because the "far-left" are not thugs? Delirious and as ignorant as it gets.

Is that all you got Lisssa?

Kinda lame even by your normal limp standards.

Don't suppose you have global warming theory to share with us, do you?
Deleted Member
- 5427 posts
January 14, 2010 6:37:28 PM CET

lissa0915 (Jan 14 2010, 02:45 PM) said: > original post
Anyone with half a brain stopped reading Purple Cow's post at: " The far-right are thugs."

Because the "far-left" are not thugs? Delirious and as ignorant as it gets. :lol:

I'm a far left progressive radical socialist :o)
wanda_2005
January 14, 2010 7:49:12 PM CET

What exactly is a "proper Climatologist"?

It seems absolutely reasonable for an Astrophysicist to contribute an opinion when looking at the effect of solar activity on climate.

It seems absolutely reasonable for a Paleobiologist to contribute when the research uses methods to extrapolate historical CO2 levels or temperatures.

Claiming that only a proper Climatologist can contribute is comparable to suggesting that a Mathematician has no business criticizing the methodology of a Mathematical Physicist.

Michael Mann contributed the infamous "hockey stick" graph in 1998 when he was 33 years old and not even a tenured professor.

Mann is under investigation for fraud since he and his colleagues at East Anglia wrote of doctoring or completely deleting data sets.

You have a lot of faith in Climatologists and i don't. You are fairly dogmatic about your beliefs and again resort to your paranoia about the right wing, in this case the ever present thuggery.

There is a lot of money lined up on both sides and you are very naive to believe that something with such a huge political dimension is a product of pure, objective science.
lissa0915
- 1443 posts
January 14, 2010 7:49:44 PM CET

@mr fook-

ha! for shame!
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 14, 2010 9:11:21 PM CET

What exactly is a "proper Climatologist"?

Uhm, that would be someone who is studying and working in the field of climatology, Wanda. Sorry if this is difficult for you.

Claiming that only a proper Climatologist can contribute is comparable to suggesting that a Mathematician has no business criticizing the methodology of a Mathematical Physicist.

No it isn't comparable to that at all. Climatologists are experts in the field of climatology. You choose to dismiss the work of 99.9% of the world's climatologists because you claim you don't trust scientists to tell the truth. And yet the first time anyone else (scientist or not) makes any claim against climate change you seize on it as if it must be gospel.

So according to your logic climatologists talking about climate must be wrong (because they are scientists.) Physicists, medical doctors or Paleobiologists talking about climate must be right (because they are scientists.)

You see the flaw in your logic there?

Michael Mann contributed the infamous "hockey stick" graph in 1998 when he was 33 years old and not even a tenured professor.

So you are saying we should ignore anything any scientist does before he becomes a professor, even if other research by other scientists backs up his findings after he becomes a professor??

You're going to have to explain your logic here, Wanda. I don't get it at all.

BTW, what is your problem with the hockey stick? It's very sound and widely accepted by people with a functioning brain.

Mann is under investigation for fraud since he and his colleagues at East Anglia wrote of doctoring or completely deleting data sets.

You have learned well from your hero dr. Goebbels, "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as the truth."

However, it remains bollocks. Dr. Mann is not under investigation for scientific fraud - as you well know.

The Emails from East Anglia absolutely do not talk about doctoring sets of data. This is just the old reality-deniers trick of cherry picking, deliberately miss-understanding scientists jargon, and quoting sentences out of context.
papasutra
- 786 posts
January 14, 2010 9:36:36 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 13 2010, 04:58 PM) said: > original post
Your arguments are made by charlatans, fraudsters and fanatics. Not one of whom is a respected climatologist, not one of whom is willing to even attempt to publish their nutcase theories in a peer-reviewed journal.

Well, Purple Cow...this sounds...well...it's maniacal. Charlatans, fraudsters and fanatics? If this isn't a textbook example of, "Let's throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" argumentation - I don't know what is.

Interesting that you never mentioned John Christy, is Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, US. He has contributed to all four major IPCC assessments, including acting as a Lead Author in 2001 and a Contributing Author in 2007.

In the film he says: "I've often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I'm am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true".

Is John Christy really a fraudster. A charlatan? Pfft...

Here Christy states: "The signature statement of the 2007 IPCC report may be paraphrased as this: "We are 90% confident that most of the warming in the past 50 years is due to humans."

We are not told here that this assertion is based on computer model output, not direct observation. The simple fact is we don't have thermometers marked with "this much is human-caused" and "this much is natural".

So, I would have written this conclusion as "Our climate models are incapable of reproducing the last 50 years of surface temperatures without a push from how we think greenhouse gases influence the climate. Other processes may also account for much of this change."

He goes on further and says: At an IPCC Lead Authors' meeting in New Zealand, I well remember a conversation over lunch with three Europeans, unknown to me but who served as authors on other chapters. I sat at their table because it was convenient.

After introducing myself, I sat in silence as their discussion continued, which boiled down to this: "We must write this report so strongly that it will convince the US to sign the Kyoto Protocol."

He must be delusional as well...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm

For as long as this board has been around, you have railed against anyone threatening or challenging your viewpoints. But even without knowing you personally, you certainly can't be right in all cases. I'm not a climatologist but I've been taught and learned from academics worth their weight. And whether or not you choose to believe it, there are some exceedingly competent and qualified people you simply claim to be fanatics and fraudsters. Not only are they the experts but many, Purple Cow, are much brighter than you. You and I both know that.

I come back to my previous example.

You are on an operating table, and you are about to have a tumor removed from your brain. The neurosurgeon is just scrubbing up.

Suddenly in rushes a climatologist. He says,

"Ok, I'm taking over now. I know nothing about brains because I'm a climatologist, but I'm a scientist, so that's ok."

This, sadly, is a sophomoric attempt into applying the Socratic Method. Maybe it works in your home or social group but thankfully not in this forum.
wanda_2005
January 14, 2010 9:44:40 PM CET

the_purplecow (Jan 14 2010, 09:11 PM) said: > original post
Uhm, that would be someone who is studying and working in the field of climatology, Wanda. Sorry if this is difficult for you.

Svensmark and Shaviv are working in the field of Climatology.

Astrophysics is absolutely important when one researches the effects of solar activity on, well, pretty much anything.

"Climatology" is an interdisciplinary field just like Neuroscience and Molecular Biology. There may be people who are Physicists, Biologists, Geologists, and Statisticians working in the field. That seems to be a problem for you only when the scientist is not supportive of the CO2 thesis of GW.

You still have not admitted that there are a lot of people positioned to cash in on GW. While you rant about capitalism, you complete ignore the multi-billion dollar market in carbon trading being set up by Goldman Sachs.

It is not about science, and you are very naive to believe that something is bullet proof because it has been peer reviewed.

Honestly, i am a bit surprised by your attitude.
ThePurpleCow
- 1022 posts
January 14, 2010 10:03:47 PM CET

I see you've given up debating the science Wanda.

Smart move.

You at least have the sense to know when you've lost.

« Previous
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next »