Jump to content
PaulG.

The biggest scam in history

Recommended Posts

Who is this "0bama" guy you keep referring to?

You haven't heard of him? rolleyes.gif

Why he is the bestower of Obama money, see this link.

http://my.opera.com/BAMAToNE/blog/2009/10/12/free-obama-money-from-his-stash

Which reminds me of Benjamin Franklin who wrote;

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Benjamin.Franklin.Quote.CC66

beer_mug.gif

Ben

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't heard of him? rolleyes.gif

I think bgapske was referring to Paul G.'s use of a zero as the first character of Obama's name as opposed to a capital O. I gotta admit, it takes dedication to continually use a zero...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but Benjamin Franklin DOES actually have his own money.

Pure fiction. No such thing as a $100 bill. (I've never seen one anyways... ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure fiction. No such thing as a $100 bill. (I've never seen one anyways... wink.gif )

I actually found one on the floor a couple of days ago in a pile of assorted junk I was cleaning up (presumably it fell there after my last trip to the states, the dates of which I would rather not disclose due to the fact that it will imply how long that pile of junk has actually been there ohmy.gif. Let's just say that it was the beginning of the real estate crash, at the time when those bills were still around).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Just look at the pictures. The pictures are the graphs. I know graphs are boring and are not as much fun as pictures of bunnies and puppies and kittens but they are still PICTURES. OK? wink.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just look at... the graphs.

Wow - data from 40,000 years ago - you can bet no programmers or scientists put fudge factors in their code back then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - data from 40,000 years ago - you can bet no programmers or scientists put fudge factors in their code back then...

And there's no signature on this article... and no references about where those graphs came from. :69_69:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - data from 40,000 years ago - you can bet no programmers or scientists put fudge factors in their code back then...

[set humour in the midst of an disaster mode = true]

That bump at 32,000 years ago represents the "Global Tree Crisis" where the false rumour spread that climbing and living in trees resulted in global warming from the branches rubbing together. The result was that man moved down out of the trees an learned to stand up-right so he could see the next scam coming from a distance.

[set mode real]

It does not take a scientist to understand those graphs. I don't like being lied too and those plots illustrate the lie we have been fed.

I have to confess that part of my discontent is in the fact that I am being lied too.

Ben

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's no signature on this article... and no references about where those graphs came from. 69_69.gif

I believe the graphs came from this video I posted earlier.

It does not take a scientist to understand those graphs.

I figured that is why raw data was deleted. The "hockey stick" probably took a nose-dive over the last 10 years and any idiot with half a brain could see that in a graph.

That's why graphs work best for me. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It does not take a scientist to understand those graphs. I don't like being lied too and those plots illustrate the lie we have been fed. I have to confess that part of my discontent is in the fact that I am being lied too.

...and my point is that if you can't beleive the most recent research (and I'm not suggesting that you do) then you can't beleive *any* of it, so showing one graph against another is futile. Also, comparing one part of the graph with allegedly manufactured data and then holding up data from ~40,000 years before we'd invented the thermometer as truth is laughable - well, laughable if it weren't so serious.

Sure, be discontented that you're being lied to - I have no issue with that - in fact, I encourage it. But let's not pretend that the data that looks to have been even partially manufactured is the only data that's been used to back up the climate change thoeries. Don't discredit the whole theory based on what isn't all the data <- that's politcal, not scientific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - data from 40,000 years ago - you can bet no programmers or scientists put fudge factors in their code back then...

Paul didn't ask you to criticize the graphs only to look at them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...the "Global Tree Crisis" where the false rumour spread that climbing and living in trees resulted in global warming from the branches rubbing together.

I thought the global tree crisis was when the leaf was adopted as legal tender (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and my point is that if you can't beleive the most recent research (and I'm not suggesting that you do) then you can't beleive *any* of it, so showing one graph against another is futile. Also, comparing one part of the graph with allegedly manufactured data and then holding up data from ~40,000 years before we'd invented the thermometer as truth is laughable - well, laughable if it weren't so serious.

Sure, be discontented that you're being lied to - I have no issue with that - in fact, I encourage it. But let's not pretend that the data that looks to have been even partially manufactured is the only data that's been used to back up the climate change thoeries. Don't discredit the whole theory based on what isn't all the data <- that's politcal, not scientific.

WE can (and may) discuss this for days and generate a lot of clever and witty posts but in the end the common non-scientist amoung us can have a hard time deciding who to believe. I am bracing for the cocktail party where after answering what I do for a living them asking the follow-up question (paraphrasing form Glenda ?sp? from the Wizard of OZ")

"Are you a good witch or a bad witch?"

Ben

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am bracing for the cocktail party where after answering what I do for a living them asking the follow-up question (paraphrasing form Glenda ?sp? from the Wizard of OZ")

Just tell them you're a physicist. That seems to end the conversation pretty abruptly.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+3 for this? Here? blink.gif

ok, so what is your point exactly?

Have you bothered to read this thread?

is it that you don't believe in climate change? the PICTURES OK? that you posted seem to show that there is continuous change. stop yelling please, btw.

is it that you don't like the consequences that this climate change may have to your lifestyle? that's political, so don't complain about a couple of scientists gone bad. they're bad people, we all agree; doesn't necessarily mean the science is bad.

is it that you don't share the political views of the people stressing this climate change, global warming?

I'm not trying to make this political. Science goes beyond politics. You are making this political. Again, read the thread.

nobody likes being lied to (whether or not this is happening here). wake up, happens all the time. if you want to keep this discussion 'clean', you should also make clear why this is such a big issue for you.

You are repeating yourself. I'll repeat myself: read the thread.

if it is a political thing it would be best if we stopped this discussion pretending we're scientists, because the "data" I've seen sofar in this discussion (pro or con) is laughable at best.

Just how can data be "laughable"? If you don't want ice core data then please feel free to find something else and present it here. And if the way the data are presented is "laughable" all I can say is graphs are the simplest way I know how to present such data. If you need something even simpler to wrap your head around please help us out.

what's even worse: it doesn't take a scientist to draw these graphs.

it doesn't mean anything, pro or con without proper source and justification.

Again, please feel free to post data with what you would consider "proper source and justification". From everything I have gathered from my critics so far: GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. thumbup1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you bothered to read this thread?

I did, and that's why I asked the question. Unfortunately, you don't seem to want to answer it here.

You started the topic, granted, question remains: what is your problem? See below before you hit reply.

I'm not trying to make this political. Science goes beyond politics. You are making this political. Again, read the thread.

Does asking questions make things political? If it is Science that concerns you, how about the organic transistor of Schon from Bell Labs; or the South Korean cloning thing: did that excite you that much?

Sidenote: how exactly does science go beyond politics? Who's funding science? May not like it, but it's the way it is.

OK, bite to this then. I hypothesize that, based on you "0bama and the watermelons" statement, this issue is in fact political for you. This is not an issue because you have every right to feel that way. For discussion sake, though, of this is the case, please stop playing the science card. If not, please stop posting politically motivated links and statements.

Just how can data be "laughable"? If you don't want ice core data then please feel free to find something else and present it here. And if the way the data are presented is "laughable" all I can say is graphs are the simplest way I know how to present such data. If you need something even simpler to wrap your head around please help us out.

40k years back without an uncertainty estimate? Sure, graphs are easy to understand, remember the hockey stick?

Maybe laughable is not the right word. How about unscientific. Just like all the other data that was presented as conclusive.

Again, please feel free to post data with what you would consider "proper source and justification". From everything I have gathered from my critics so far: GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. thumbup1.gif

Why do you feel your arguments are better? The issue is complicated, the data often ambiguous. There is a world wide community of climate/environmental scientists working on this. Why do you distrust all of these people?

+3 for this? Here? blink.gif

is that another seniority issue? :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice core data, cyclical temperature changes, who said what and when, graphs, politics... none of this is really relevant.

To me, the central issue that needs to be addressed is from where we get our energy. Right now, the bulk of the world's petroleum reserves -- the energy source we find easiest to obtain and use -- are under countries with unstable political regimes and (to Westerners) undesirable cultures. The US is fighting two wars because we have to keep ourselves involved in the politics of the Middle East. Plentiful non-petrochemical energy would mean that these countries would become irrelevant.

What truly irks me about our country's energy strategy (or lack thereof) is the complete absence of political will and forward thinking. We've spent close to a trillion dollars over the last eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan; imagine how many solar panels, wind farms, nuclear reactors, or whatever other kinds of non-petrochemical energy sources could have been brought online with that kind of money. We've been collectively dicking around with fusion research for the last four decades, and the latest projections that I've seen still put practical fusion power out another 20 years. We're spending only about $200 million per year (that's 0.25% of what we spend in Iraq) on what should be a Manhattan Project-style national priority.

This is the real issue. Without stable, abundant, and inexpensive energy, our entire economy stumbles and falters. We have become the pawns of political regimes whose power and influence otherwise would be those of nomadic desert tribesman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets all take a timeout and take a quick quiz to see what our levels of understanding truly is on this HUGE topic that needs final conclusion :

Short Quiz #1 : http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Short Quiz #2 : http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Globalwarmingquiz.pdf

Further reading :

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/

http://climateaudit.org/

http://icecap.us/index.php

http://iceagenow.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

Stay properly informed folks. Please. The most inconvienant truth in the USA is the Constitution. We've had one type of framework since 1776. Look at how many many other countries have had since then. Capitalism and free markets were / are part of that plan. Each country has its own free will of choosing. The real topic here is about redistribution of money and the choices people make to what type of government they have.

A Conditionally-led Republic (USA) type of government as designed by the Framers is far better than anything out there (with all due respect to other LAVAer's). This is fact. Marxism, Socialism, Communism just don't work. How many potatoes could you find in a market in the USSR ? One maybe two ? Lets be conservationist but lets not impose wacky, leftist mob rule on common sense people. The tide is turning in the US against the 60's leftist nonsense. Europe needs to return to its senses too (I love your food, but wonder what happen 2-3 hundred years ago with your government paths ...).

The leftist in the last 40 + years have wanted to push out God from the culture. Now they want to push out civilty, common sense, and proper debate in science - because it "feels good". When the numbers don't go their way they still can't admit their wrong. Sounds like my 17-year old slamming doors because he can't have the family car keys. He is doing better now (heading for West Point).

So, during the timeframe of Moore's Law where computers where doubling in speed every x years, common sense, reason and rational thinking has lessening at the same or greater rate. That is why we are having this debate. The warmest year in the past 100 years was and still is 1934. Ouch, facts do hurt ! Can we erase that ? No. Sorry. Maybe in 1934 they ate too much meat that year, or maybe they were exhaling too much. Hmmm. Sounds like a One Flew Over's convention discussion.

In the end, humans want one thing the most and that is Freedom. That would be Liberty over Tyranny. Freedom from voodoo science trying to CONTROL our lives.

Now lets return to a higher level of reason and rational thinking ... even while we are coding in LabVIEW. Oh, BTW, I am using NI 8353 (Quad-Core), PXI express (two 6535's), LabVIEW 2009, & Real-Time fo the first time. What fun !

Merry Christmas to All !

-Karl

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has the 'edit post' feature a minimal time on the new forums or has it always been like this?

.... This is not an issue absolutely no problem because you have every right to feel that way. ....

Lets all take a timeout and take a quick quiz to see what our levels of understanding truly is on this HUGE topic that needs final conclusion :

<links removed/>

(...) The real topic here is about redistribution of money and the choices people make to what type of government they have. (...)

(...) Marxism, Socialism, Communism just don't work. (...) The tide is turning in the US against the 60's leftist nonsense. Europe needs to return to its senses too (I love your food, but wonder what happen 2-3 hundred years ago with your government paths ...). (....)

The leftist in the last 40 + years have wanted to push out God from the culture. Now they want to push out civilty, common sense, and proper debate in science - because it "feels good". When the numbers don't go their way they still can't admit their wrong. (....)

(... ) Freedom from voodoo science trying to CONTROL our lives. (..)

Karl, others will probably respond to your points in detail. Thank you for illustrating that standpoints in this debate are highly political and not scientific. Again, that is not a problem, just be open about it.

Edited by Dirk J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.