Catholicism and Climate Change

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaserius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The criminal investigation is NOT going away …

And the last two paragraphs from the article cited:

Some final thoughts: Being charitable, I will assume that Mann made honest statistical and other errors in his 1998 and 1999 papers. But after these errors were published widely by M&M, Mann’s behavior has been unethical to say the least. He has not replied to the critiques, nor even referenced them. He has just ignored them and tried to muddle the situation. (The National Academy report did the same.)

Is Mann guilty of fraud? I don’t know; much depends on what Cuccinelli uncovers. But I am of the opinion that Mann should formally withdraw his flawed papers and no longer refer to them in his bibliography or in grant applications without at least a footnote. Formal withdrawal could create a storm, however, since the 2001 IPCC report built its case for man-made global warming on the validity of the hockey stick. There may be interesting times ahead.
 
Oh my…:rolleyes:
Again the email issue was addressed at length in this thread…
The global warming hoax is a HUGE Ponzi scheme.

Two billion per year in taxpayer money has been funneled into it.

When you do a Ponzi scheme, YOU GO TO PRISON!!!

It doesn’t matter if everybody LOVES you … [Bernie Madoff???] … He is in prison and his son hanged himself.

This fraud “thing” is really bad, nasty stuff.

If you falsify your tax returns, the IRS doesn’t care about how long ago it was or how much fancy footwork you do.

There is no statute of limitations on TAX FRAUD.

If you lie on your tax returns, then it is perjury and … jail, baby!

The same thing applies to this global warming, climate change hoax.

These guys [and a few gals] have been falsifying data, in many different manifestations. Such as taking a report, jacking up the title of the report, and sliding a whole new set of erroneous conclusions under it and then scotch-taping the original signatures under the new fake report.

Throwing away data.

And they even admitted to it in a long, TEDIOUS, set of emails … where they were patting themselves on the back for being sooo clever. I mean, like, you can BUY a bound book with the thousand emails going back ten years … on Amazon. Kind of like Wikileaks, but the shoe is on the other foot, metaphorically-speaking.

Sorry.

But they just fabricated and “falsehooded” their way through the entire artificial “controversy”.

They enriched themselves with BILLIONS of dollars in government grants and conferences in places like Cancun … and to cover their tracks are trying to change government policies … such as cap and trade.

And it is all starting to unravel and collapse.
 
I just wanted to apologize for writing some sassy posts. I would like to be a good Christian, but it’s difficult 😊
 
Do you investigate who funds the push to discredit the science insisting that it isn’t happening or doesn’t matter? Hummmmm wonder?
PLEASE … enlighten us.

We know that the U.S. Federal government spends $2 billion, with a B, to fund the pro-man-made-global warming agenda … not to mention money from non-U.S. government agencies.

We can noodle around and probably find George Soros’ fingerprints in there.

We do know that the group … www.sepp.org … S. Fred Singer relies on his own pension money and free-will contributions.

We do know that the group … www.oism.org … Arthur Robinson relies on selling newsletter subscriptions t o Access To Energy and his own personal money from his home schooling program.

We do know that other groups rely on free will donations and book selling.

www.energyadvocate.com which is Howard Hayden. ditto.

But, please do enlighten us.

Dollars. And Euros. Etc.
 
Do you investigate who funds the push to discredit the science insisting that it isn’t happening or doesn’t matter? Hummmmm wonder?
You know that I do and have. I’m the one here, through my research, who found out that ESSO EXXON’s old name ], and other big oil money BP, Shell etc ] actually started - and funds CRU. This is called “Soft Money” and not confused with major government grant monies.

If you remember, PAC -SIG Suzuki - GreenPeace - WWF etc etc…] moneys is one thing even Jason didn’t want to go into.

Actually, no one is trying to discredit the "science’ - It’s the claims we intend to sort out.
 
You know that I do and have. I’m the one here, through my research, who found out that ESSO EXXON’s old name ], and other big oil money BP, Shell etc ] actually started - and funds CRU. This is called “Soft Money” and not confused with major government grant monies.
Nonetheless, it is relevant to point out that it that we do not just have the evil, sociopathic, money-grubbing “AGWers” (which, apparently, includes me; funny, I haven’t gotten *my *check yet) and the saintly, altruistic anti-AGW activists who are motivated purely by the pursuit of the truth. No, in reality, they have at least as much of a vested interest in pushing their own point of view as their opponents or anyone else. We don’t need to be reminded of the rampancy of greed in the world, scientists and writers being no exceptions. But remember, it cuts both ways.

If the government did start funding ant-AGW research, does anyone entertain the notion that none of them would decide what conclusions they would come to regardless of their findings? Because it’s in their interest to do so? Anyway, discussing the people and institutions can distract from the issue itself.
Monte RCMS:
We can noodle around and probably find George Soros’ fingerprints in there.
And Rupert Murdoch’s fingerprints all over Fox News and every conservative radio show on the air. What difference does it make?
40.png
lynnvinc:
I just wanted to apologize for writing some sassy posts. I would like to be a good Christian, but it’s difficult
One can only try.
 
With ALL the Government Grant Monies being awarded - one has to ask - Why does Mr Mann need Economic Stimulus Funds?
Code:
                                               By [Noel Sheppard](http://www.newsbusters.org/users/noel-sheppard) | January 14, 2010 | 09:44
              [newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/user_pics/picture-26.jpg](http://www.newsbusters.org/users/noel-sheppard)  
  A scientist in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal received economic stimulus funds last June.
As NewsBusters reported on November 28, Penn State University is investigating Professor Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited “Hockey Stick Graph,” for his involvement in an international attempt to exaggerate and manipulate climate data in order to advance the myth of manmade global warming.
According to the conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research, Mann received $541,184 in economic stimulus funds last June to conduct climate change research.
With this in mind, NCPPR issued a press release Thursday asking for these funds to be returned:
In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.
“It’s outrageous that economic stimulus money is being used to support research conducted by Michael Mann at the very time he’s under investigation by Penn State and is one of the key figures in the international Climategate scandal. Penn State should immediately return these funds to the U.S. Treasury,” said Tom Borelli, Ph.D., director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda-driven science. Emails and documents mysteriously released from the previously-prestigious Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom revealed discussions of manipulation and destruction of research data, as well as efforts to interfere with the peer review process to stifle opposing views. The motivation underlying these efforts appears to be a coordinated strategy to support the belief that mankind’s activities are causing global warming. …]
The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009.
Potentially adding insult to injury, Penn State received additional stimulus funds to investigate the impact of climate change last week:
A nearly $1.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation is enabling a Penn State-led group of researchers to continue studies on the potential effects of climate change on the spread of infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue. The grant is part of federal stimulus funding authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
This grant appears to have nothing to do with Mann’s department. However, given the high-profile the university is currently under as a result of his involvement in ClimateGate, it seems absurd that any federal funds involving climate change would be going to this school while it is investigating its chief proponent of this myth.
Maybe more importantly, why are economic stimulus funds being given to a university for scientific research in the first place, especially one with such political overtones?
As NCPPR noted in its release:
“It’s no wonder that Obama’s stimulus plan is failing to produce jobs. Taxpayer dollars aren’t being used in the ways most likely to spur job creation. The stimulus was not sold to the public as a way to reward a loyalist in the climate change debate. Nor was the stimulus sold as a way to promote the Obama Administration’s position on the global warming theory…As is often the case, political considerations corrupt the distribution of government funds,” said Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the National Center’s Project 21 black leadership network.
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/14/climategate-scientist-received-economic-stimulus-funds-media-mum
 
Nonetheless, it is relevant to point out that it that we do not just have the evil, sociopathic, money-grubbing “AGWers” (which, apparently, includes me; funny, I haven’t gotten *my *check yet)
Actually, no. BUT it is relevant to point out “circular reasoning”. My response was to 4else’s claim that
Do you investigate who funds the push to discredit the science insisting that it isn’t happening or doesn’t matter? Hummmmm wonder?
and the saintly, altruistic anti-AGW activists who are motivated purely by the pursuit of the truth.
😃 Since you included yourself above - can I include myself here, please? 😛
No, in reality, they have at least as much of a vested interest in pushing their own point of view as their opponents or anyone else. We don’t need to be reminded of the rampancy of greed in the world, scientists and writers being no exceptions. But remember, it cuts both ways.
ABSOLUTELY!!! 🙂
That was what I had attempted in my post to point out. If you search this thread you will read where I have repeatedly asked a question similar to this: Can anyone tell me the difference between Big Oil / energy etc funding “research and travel” of AGW’ers and "research and travel’ of anti-AGW’ers?

For some it seems to be an issue that EXXON at one time offered money for scientist to write chapters for a book.
 
Do you investigate who funds the push to discredit the science insisting that it isn’t happening or doesn’t matter? Hummmmm wonder?
Yes as a matter of fact. And what is being called “science” here is an insult to true scientists everywhere.

Why would scientists, 30,000+ of them, have an incentive to sign the petition when they are getting nothing from it? And why would university professors being funded by the government and by private industry (GE) have an incentive to push for their “theory” to be put forward as true? Could it be that there is a combination between $$$ and ideology?
 
Here’s another unsurprising outcome from buying into the idea that going green is just naturally the right thing to do.
**
Freezing Brits steamed over new green boilers**

 
Here’s another unsurprising outcome from buying into the idea that going green is just naturally the right thing to do.
**
Freezing Brits steamed over new green boilers**

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/freezing_brits_steamed_over_ne.html
Oh, but Ender, Britain is waking up to even more of the green con.

Britain’s wind farms becalmed just when needed the most.

Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind. ,

The wind turbines may even use up electricity during a calm period, as they were rotated in order to keep the mechanical parts working…
 
Oh, but Ender, Britain is waking up to even more of the green con.

Britain’s wind farms becalmed just when needed the most.

Despite high demand for electricity as people shivered at home over Christmas, most of the 3,000 wind turbines around Britain stood still due to a lack of wind. ,

The wind turbines may even use up electricity during a calm period, as they were rotated in order to keep the mechanical parts working…
It could (and very likely will) become worse if they continue down the green path. The UK target is to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 and given that most of their renewable energy is from wind turbines it turns out they will need an area the size of Wales to site them all. Good luck with that. (And they’ll still need coal plants for those times when, as in this instance, the wind shes’a no blow so good.)

telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Ender
 
It could (and very likely will) become worse if they continue down the green path. The UK target is to generate 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020 and given that most of their renewable energy is from wind turbines it turns out they will need an area the size of Wales to site them all. Good luck with that. (And they’ll still need coal plants for those times when, as in this instance, the wind shes’a no blow so good.)

telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/3500971/Wind-turbines-would-need-to-cover-Wales-to-supply-a-sixth-of-countrys-energy-needs.html

Ender
Wind farms also need “spinning reserve” … usually gas turbines burning natural gas to be instantly ready to spring into action if the wind dies.

So the turbines are spinning but not pulling any load, until the wind dies … then they have to pick up the generating load.

[There’s an oops.]

So, you end up with the high cost of the wind mills and the high cost of the gas turbines … so you’re paying more than double for the cost of buying and installing the machinery.
 
Wind farms also need “spinning reserve” … usually gas turbines burning natural gas to be instantly ready to spring into action if the wind dies.

So the turbines are spinning but not pulling any load, until the wind dies … then they have to pick up the generating load.

[There’s an oops.]

So, you end up with the high cost of the wind mills and the high cost of the gas turbines … so you’re paying more than double for the cost of buying and installing the machinery.
True - but surely we will be warmed by the glow of self satisfaction in knowing that we are green (although blue green to be sure).

Ender
 
To reduce use of coal burning to produce electricity … because coal allegedly puts a lot of mercury into the air … the government environmental agencies are requiring use of the Mercury Curly Light Bulbs.

[Of course, we get the mercury light bulbs from China and China is buying up all the coal they can from all over the world to generate electricity in China. So, the environmentalists in the USA may not want to burn coal, but China is burning coal as fast as they can.]

HOWEVER, the hazardous materials in those Mercury Curly Light Bulbs require extreme, severe hazmat procedures to clean up a broken mercury light bulb.

At least several states have on-line detailed instructions for proper disposal of those curly bulbs. Maine’s instructions go on for something like 14 steps.

AND, there are severe medical conditions caused by mercury … especially for pregnant women.

So, in an over-reaction to mercury in coal, we now have introduced a deadly poison into our homes … mercury … those CFL’s should be renamed Mercury Death Bulbs.

Don’t break one and don’t put one in your trash; they will contaminate the landfill and if you break one and clean up your house, then DO NOT wash your clothes at home because the mercury in your clothes will contaminate your septic system and the soil and will contaminate your local sewage treatment plant.

Even worse, some states now have the authority to search your garbage and if they find a CFL that is improperly disposed of, then you can be prosecuted!

Thank you, environmentalists!
 
An interesting read
We Are Lost In A New Age Of Sophistry
Code:
    By [VICTOR DAVIS HANSON](http://www.investors.com/Search/SearchResults.aspx?source=filterSearch&Ntt=VICTOR+DAVIS+HANSON&Nr=AND%28Author%3aVICTOR+DAVIS+HANSON%29) Posted 01/06/2011 06:30 PM ET 
         	              	                                                
         One constant here is equating wisdom with a certificate  of graduation from a prestigious school. If, in the fashion of the  sophist Protagoras, one writes that record cold proves record heat, or  that record borrowing and printing money will create jobs and sustained  economic growth, or that a 223-year-old Constitution is 100 years old  and largely irrelevant, then credibility can be claimed only in the  title or the credentials — but not the logic — of the writer.
America is huge and diverse, but the world of our credentialed experts is quite small, warped and monotonous — circumscribed largely by the prestigious university and an office in the incestuous Washington-New York corridor. There are plenty of prizes, honors and degrees among our policy setters and experts, but very little experience in running a business in Oklahoma, raising a large family in Kansas or working on an assembly line in Michigan, a military base in Texas, a boat in Alaska or a ranch in Idaho.
In classical sophistic fashion, rhetoric is never far from personal profit. Multimillionaire Al Gore convinced the governments of the Western world that they were facing a global-warming Armageddon, then hired out his services to address the hysteria he helped create.
How many climate Cassandras have well-funded research positions predicated on grants and subsidies that depend on convincing the public and government of impending disasters that they then can be hired to monitor and address? Are there no green antitrust laws?
In contrast, how many of our climate theorists run irrigated farms and energy-intensive businesses at the mercy of new regulations that emanate from distant theorizing?
The public might have better believed the deficit nostrums of former budget director Orszag had he not retired after less than two years on the job to position himself for a multimillion-dollar billet at Citigroup — itself a recent recipient of some $25 billion in government bailout funds.
Are we to wonder why an angry, grassroots Tea Party spread — or why it was instantly derided by our experts and technocrats as ill-informed or worse?
investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/559011/201101061830/We-Are-Lost-In-A-New-Age-Of-Sophistry.aspx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top