The biggest scam in history

[crelf]

Crelf, you have proven that being a good LabVIEW programmer (not a fighter ...) does not carry over to having a rational debate about the GW scare, and the related real topic of re-distribution of wealth.

Actually, if you re-read my posts in this thread without the filter that you seem to have applied to them then you'll notice that I don't come down on either side - I'm asking questions, just like you are, I'm just asking them in different ways. I'm not a socialist, democrat (in the true definition of the word), a republican (in the politicized definition of the word), a Labour, Liberal, Green, Independant, Tory or anything else for that matter (well, maybe a constitutional monachist for the moment ). In fact, I'm about as anti-political as you can get. I'm disgusted like you are that some moron fiddled the numbers for whatever reason (you'll notice that from some of my posts) and that that moron, in a way, represents the field of engineering, but I'm also not so political that I'm going to assume that means that all of the research in the field is bogus. I'm also not going to try to use emotionally-charged terminology to try to bait a response out of anyone.

If you want to apply this horrific root issue to other socialtal problems like redistribution of wealth then I gotta say that I'm way out of my depth there, so I choose not to engage (since, it seems, that any attempt at conjecture on my part is assumed to be my staunch politcal and sociatal view of the world, which it most-certainly is not). I'm all for debate, and I live to to think outside the box - but don't for a second assume that every question I post in the LAVA lounge is representative of my views - they're questions, not statements.

That said, if the conjectures and ideas in this or any other thread form your view of me, then so be it - there's nothing I can do about that other than state my case and let you make up your mind. Until then, I'd ask you to keep away from personal profiling - if you want to talk about climate change, redistribution of wealth, systems of government or whatever other topic then go for it, but don't try to characterize me, especially since I haven't even done that myself.

[Gary Rubin]

Actually, if you re-read my posts in this thread without the filter that you seem to have applied to them then you'll notice that I don't come down on either side - I'm asking questions, just like you are, I'm just asking them in different ways. I'm not a socialist, democrat (in the true definition of the word), a republican (in the politicized definition of the word), a Labour, Liberal, Green, Independant, Tory or anything else for that matter (well, maybe a constitutional monachist for the moment ). In fact, I'm about as anti-political as you can get. I'm disgusted like you are that some moron fiddled the numbers for whatever reason (you'll notice that from some of my posts) and that that moron, in a way, represents the field of engineering, but I'm also not so political that I'm going to assume that means that all of the research in the field is bogus. I'm also not going to try to use emotionally-charged terminology to try to bait a response out of anyone.

If you want to apply this horrific root issue to other socialtal problems like redistribution of wealth then I gotta say that I'm way out of my depth there, so I choose not to engage (since, it seems, that any attempt at conjecture on my part is assumed to be my staunch politcal and sociatal view of the world, which it most-certainly is not). I'm all for debate, and I live to to think outside the box - but don't for a second assume that every question I post in the LAVA lounge is representative of my views - they're questions, not statements.

That said, if the conjectures and ideas in this or any other thread form your view of me, then so be it - there's nothing I can do about that other than state my case and let you make up your mind. Until then, I'd ask you to keep away from personal profiling - if you want to talk about climate change, redistribution of wealth, systems of government or whatever other topic then go for it, but don't try to characterize me, especially since I haven't even done that myself.

Well said, Crelf

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

Back from the holidays, Happy New Year All !!!

...

sipped the coolaid into believing that the early 1910's style American Progressive movement, rooted from facism and what the globama folks want to see here is a good one.

...

Seond tip: look up Cloward & Pivan which is along the same lines "Rules for Radicals".. Yes, the big transformation that was announced by globama is this. See who he sourrounds himself. See what domestic & international (cap n tax) policies fit the design of the collaspe of the US.

How does this fit in with the Founding Framers designs? Answer: it doesn't - at ALL !!!

...

The 60's experiment has failed. It fails the Math (ask the State Legislature in California).

...

I agree with many of those issue but do not feel that CRELF is responcible or falling for it.

NOTE: the following ideas are limited to the period prior to 1933! (prior to that group that shall remain nameless*

I have been reading a lot of history over the last couple of years since I "sensed" something was happening but did not know what. So rewsponding to the expression "WE can only look into the future by standing on the shoulders of the past" and "Those that fail to study history are doomed to repeat it." I strted to study what I had available. After completing "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reicht" by Sheierer (sp?) I dived into Winston Churchill's "The History of the second World War" and am currently reading volume 4 or the 6 part series.

I am concerened the US is walking the path of the Weimar Republic and with the monitizing of the debt leading to hyperinflation.

The US is spending more than we are producing so unless something changes, hyperinfltaion should be expected and with that the collapse of teh economy. If that happens the goals of Cloward & Pivan will be realized.

So what will happen next?

I'll let you "stand on the shoulders of the past" and judge for yourself.

Speaking as one who is concerned over that thing my fore-fathers brought forth and my ancestors and myself swore to defend,

Ben

* The group that shall remain nameless - I feel like I am wimping out by using that phrase but in the interest of the life of this excellent thought provoking thread, I will leave it at that.

[Yair]

Any country with a constant unemployment rate (over say 10-15 recent years time) of above 4-6% is a system that is not working.

I calculated that this is actually 2.3% and if 97.7% of the population is working it means they are below animal level and are prostitues of the secret police.

And in case it wasn't obvious enough, my point is that making a claim like that is unfounded, because what makes 4-6% the magic number?

I don't claim to have an answer, but my basic point is what crelf and others have claimed - you (or at least I) don't know, so this debate is mostly pointless (which is basically why I haven't participated at all in this discussion).

[crelf]

...this debate is mostly pointless (which is basically why I haven't participated at all in this discussion).

I wish I had done the same.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I wish I had done the same.

I am glad you did not. your willingness to act a sounding borad is greatly appreciated.

Ben

[crelf]

I am glad you did not. your willingness to act a sounding borad is greatly appreciated.

Thanks Ben - I'm really glad you said that - it means a lot to me

[BobHamburger]

I am glad you did not. your willingness to act a sounding borad is greatly appreciated.

Ben

What was that? A sounding Borat?

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

What was that? A sounding Borat?

LOL.

Ben

[crelf]

What was that? A sounding Borat?

Is very nice!

[PaulG.]

Let's all share a group hug, have a few bro-mances, sing Kumbya ... and get back on topic.

How Climategate killed "peer review".

[PaulG.]

A recent segment from one of the original GW/"CC" skeptics. John Coleman was one of the first to label global warming as "The Biggest Scam in History."

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would be more willing to listen to a well-seasoned meteorologist, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and a programmer than any politician.

[PaulG.]

A Critical Perspective on Climategate

[Gary Rubin]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would be more willing to listen to a well-seasoned meteorologist, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist...

I don't know about you, but when meteorologists can't predict tomorrow's weather with agreed-upon models and timely data, I have very little faith that they can predict long-term trends.

[Yair]

I don't know about everyone else here, but I would be more willing to listen to a well-seasoned meteorologist, a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and a programmer than any politician.

If you wish, I'm sure we can find politicians who believe GW is a scam and metorologists and programmers who believe it's real and use that exact claim in reverse. Why don't you believe them?

[PaulG.]

If you wish, I'm sure we can find politicians who believe GW is a scam and metorologists and programmers who believe it's real and use that exact claim in reverse. Why don't you believe them?

Those of us who believe GW/"CC" is a scam are labeled "deniers". The public at large has been told time and time again that the "science is settled". I am not a "denier". I am a skeptic. And thanks to the time I invested investigating this issue further I am even more skeptical.

The "science" of GW/"CC" is far from settled.

[crelf]

The "science" of GW/"CC" is far from settled.

Sure - but so is the science against it. There are inseparable - you can't confirm one without denying the other.

[Yair]

I am not a "denier". I am a skeptic.

I wouldn't call you a denier, nor would I call you a skeptic - it seems to me that you picked a side (which happens to be the "defending" side at the moment). I have no tools to judge (and to be honest, I doubt there's a single person on this planet who does have the tools to give proper answers to many of these questions), so I profess my ignorance.

Like crelf said, the basic point of my last post was that you can't make a valid claim from one side while ignoring the fact that you can make the same claim from the other side.

[PaulG.]

I wouldn't call you a denier, nor would I call you a skeptic - it seems to me that you picked a side (which happens to be the "defending" side at the moment). I have no tools to judge (and to be honest, I doubt there's a single person on this planet who does have the tools to give proper answers to many of these questions), so I profess my ignorance.

Like crelf said, the basic point of my last post was that you can't make a valid claim from one side while ignoring the fact that you can make the same claim from the other side.

Both sides cannot be true. Either the earth is warming or it is not. Either man is causing GW or we are not.

That is where the scientific method and debate comes in. The pro GW/"CC" advocates attempted to stop the debate, and called a (IMO premature) "victory" when they stated: "the science is settled." Those of us who are skeptical beg to differ. To claim "victory" when the science is far from settled while the welfare of our planet Earth is at stake is arrogant and dangerous. You cannot, as a scientist, claim "I WON!", pick up your marbles and go home and start influencing policy that costs trillions of dollars and will affect billions of people.

Adults don't act that way. Science doesn't work that way. We need to be smarter than this.

[Yair]

Science doesn't work that way.

I think you mean "science SHOULD'NT work that way". If you look throughout history, scientists are not exactly above being petty, vindictive and short-sighted. When you couple that with the constant fight for limited resources (you can't do research for free), you get even more justification to get the Money Man to give the money to you and not that pesky scientist with the opposing theory.

FWIW, I am skeptical in this issue. I do think that GW is probably represented incorrectly. The difference is that in my case it's just a feeling, nothing more, since I don't have anything concrete to base that feeling on. And I certainly agree that sometime people take one side and believe it to be gospel even without basis. That does not mean the other side is necessarily correct. Debate, in itself, is not helpful, as this is a scientific issue - either the scientists can tell us what's going on or they can't. After that, it's a political issue of deciding what to do, and that's where the debate is relevant.

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

I think you mean "science SHOULD'NT work that way". If you look throughout history, scientists are not exactly above being petty, vindictive and short-sighted. When you couple that with the constant fight for limited resources (you can't do research for free), you get even more justification to get the Money Man to give the money to you and not that pesky scientist with the opposing theory.

FWIW, I am skeptical in this issue. I do think that GW is probably represented incorrectly. The difference is that in my case it's just a feeling, nothing more, since I don't have anything concrete to base that feeling on. And I certainly agree that sometime people take one side and believe it to be gospel even without basis. That does not mean the other side is necessarily correct. Debate, in itself, is not helpful, as this is a scientific issue - either the scientists can tell us what's going on or they can't. After that, it's a political issue of deciding what to do, and that's where the debate is relevant.

I was first introduced to the idea of global warming when I was working for academia. I used to stand outside with the head of the under-grad program and smoke cigars with him and another emeritus who's retiremnet interest was the physics of health. One of them said "Where exactly do we stick the thermometer to measure the temperature of the earth?" and the other one said "how do you do a scientific experiment to prove it one way or the other, without a control?'

So I FEEL "They can't" prove it and without proof it can only be a theory. So continuing with your thought this should not be a question of politics and that is part of my beef that the politicians have no fact to justify what they are trying to do (unless you are the same page a Danny Glover (sp?) who stated the Haiti earthquake was due to no action being taken in Copenhagen).

Ben

[Cat]

(unless you are the same page a Danny Glover (sp?) who stated the Haiti earthquake was due to no action being taken in Copenhagen).

He is so wrong! It was because Haiti made a pact with the devil. According to Pat Robertson, anyway...

[Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden]

He is so wrong! It was because Haiti made a pact with the devil. According to Pat Robertson, anyway...

Agreed, but the devil is off-topic for this thread.

Ben

[Cat]

Agreed, but the devil is off-topic for this thread.

You're right, sorry! Besides, I keep swearing I'm not posting to this thread anymore. I'd say the devil made me do it, but then we'd be right back where we started.

[hooovahh]

I'd say the devil made me do it, but then we'd be right back where we started.

Flip Wilson is that you?

(off topic sorry I know)