It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.
We know the IPCC has been cooking the books themselves, the "glacier gone in 30 years" snippet taken from a popular magazine is one such stupidity. However, the insidious part is not that they actually do this fixing up numbers themselves, it's that they have a heavy hand in who to back, promote to research positions, put in various journal boards etc. I explained this a while back in the thread. The basic issue is similar to the one in docu-soaps: You don't need selective cutting and such phony methods if you have chosen the right setup of deviant personalities as competitors. By the same token, you merely need to make sure the right people get influence in the climate science industry to get the data you want and no data that goes against your wishes. You don't use money for this, at least not just money, far more effective is prestige and the ears of politicians who get a wet feeling in their pants just thinking about getting popular support for dozens of new carbon- and environmental-related taxes that bring a bigger budget.
|
What is there about expansion of the planet that prevents subduction? It might imply that subduction is recent, or perhaps had halted at point until the expansion of the planet started the plates shaking again.Subduction happens with continental drift. An expansion hypothesis can 'accept' continental drift, but it does not require it. Expansion does not itself explain continental drift, it assumes it is something else that is going on and irrelevant. Therefore Expansion does not explain the whole.
This is also why more recent expansion theories have attempted to add continental drift and subduction to their explanations, but it still becomes a more complicated explanation that relies on too many factors with no evidence.
Plate tectonics more accurately describes the Earth and everything we've been able to find in the geologic record.
Also, an Earth the current size with a Pangea continent more accurately fits the acceleration of the Moon's orbit.
There's physical evidence to support this as well, called tidally laminated sediment. They're able to analyze sediment that's millions of years old and calculate how fast the Moon was receding from the Earth to within 3mm per year, 1.95cm±0.29cm per year, compared to today's 3.82±0.07.
If the smaller Earth didn't have oceans, there wouldn't be a tidal transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, which is what causes the Moon to recede.
First, an expanding earth would break the crust, and with the crust parts being unstable, they would logically move, aka plate tetonics is a logical follow up to an expanding earth.
Second, this is reality, not some game, therefore there is no such thing as too many factors. There are almost always more factors then are being accounted for when dealing with any natural system.
Third, plate tetonics is not mutually exclusive of expanding earth, thus it isn't just an alternative.
Fourth, I postulated the increase in earth size to be from an increase in rotation , which means the mass of the earth didn't change that much, and thus the moon's orbit is unaffected.
Fifth, nothing about expanding earth says there weren't oceans. But we know that much of the land nowadays was under the oceans millions of years ago. Epanding earth does provide a much more plausable reason for this.
Six, I am not a creationist, and their bible is not evidence of anything scientic.
That site linked to has some actual evidence, but it also has some really poor evidence too. The fact that the all the sea floors are much younger then the continents is evidence, now they just need to use better methods to support this, their claim of historical evidence from the bible is not evidence.
I personally support the idea that the expanding earth was probably created by being hit at just the right angle by a large asteroid in the past. Which also increased the rotation, which has since been slowing down.
I do not in any way support bringing religion into science.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
You're being provincial again, Citizen X.
We know the IPCC has been cooking the books themselves, the "glacier gone in 30 years" snippet taken from a popular magazine is one such stupidity.This is not sufficient. We know nothing of the sort.
And if I may, Madame Sissyl, where did you explain how climatists took over the academic journals? I've tried on three separate occasions to make some sense of this thread but it's difficult...
|
Was this "all glaciers"? A particular glacier? Worst case scenario? Best case scenario? What did the actual science the article was based on say? Without knowing more, it's just meaningless.
Sissyl was likely referring to one of the few actual errors (identified by climate scientists, not 'skeptics') in the 3000 page long fourth assessment report. Section 10.6.2 included a statement that the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 if current warming continued. This was referenced to a 1999 report in New Scientist. As that was not a peer reviewed paper the citation should not have been included in the AR4. Further, the scientist quoted by the magazine subsequently stated that it was speculation on his part, and only applied to a particular glacier rather than the entire Himalayas.
A serious error, which wingnuts have blown up into a great conspiracy... completely ignoring the fact that it was the supposed IPCC conspirators themselves who identified and reported the error.
which means the mass of the earth didn't change that much
Whoa whoa whoa...what's this about the mass of the earth changing?
Even if the earth did expand, it would be an expansion of volume, not a change in mass.|
|
Whoa whoa whoa...what's this about the mass of the earth changing? Even if the earth did expand, it would be an expansion of volume, not a change in mass.
Hey now!
Next you'll be claiming there is some sort of 'rule' about matter not just appearing out of nothingness.
Don't be spouting your crazy 'made up science' when faced with the utter brilliance of the inflatable planet theory!
First, an expanding earth would break the crust, and with the crust parts being unstable, they would logically move, aka plate tetonics is a logical follow up to an expanding earth.Second, this is reality, not some game, therefore there is no such thing as too many factors. There are almost always more factors then are being accounted for when dealing with any natural system.
Third, plate tetonics is not mutually exclusive of expanding earth, thus it isn't just an alternative.
Fourth, I postulated the increase in earth size to be from...
It really sounds like you're just making this all up off the top of your head.
[Hides his smile behind his hands]
Hee hee!
EDIT: It was funnier before Citizen Truth edited it.
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Not sure that is entirely accurate. There are a number of large quaker business in the UK that he would have no doubt been aware off, operating within his publishing lifetime and making both large profits and massive improvements to the lives of workers. Cadburys for instance.
[Hides his smile behind his hands]
Hee hee!
EDIT: It was funnier before Citizen Truth edited it.
Yeah, I let my polite side get the better of me.
We know the IPCC has been cooking the books themselves, the "glacier gone in 30 years" snippet taken from a popular magazine is one such stupidity. However, the insidious part is not that they actually do this fixing up numbers themselves, it's that they have a heavy hand in who to back, promote to research positions, put in various journal boards etc. I explained this a while back in the thread. The basic issue is similar to the one in docu-soaps: You don't need selective cutting and such phony methods if you have chosen the right setup of deviant personalities as competitors. By the same token, you merely need to make sure the right people get influence in the climate science industry to get the data you want and no data that goes against your wishes. You don't use money for this, at least not just money, far more effective is prestige and the ears of politicians who get a wet feeling in their pants just thinking about getting popular support for dozens of new carbon- and environmental-related taxes that bring a bigger budget.
What you're describing is the opposite of what has happened in the US. Bashing climatologists is the norm here, particularly in the public spheres.
Also, I'd like an answer to the question. Why should I be more concerned over the IPCC's $10 billion that it doesn't have, than oil companies who actually do make $40 billion in profit a year?
How is a fiction $10 billion > an actual $40 billion?
Jeff, shouldn't we also be able to measure the rate at which it is slowing, and be able to observe the evidence of its contraction, as it looses spin thanks to being tidally locked with the moon.
What with the proposal that the volume increase is mass less.
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
The specifics were of course unknowable. But an all or nothing fallacy should have been easier to spot. He's been oddly prescient in the rise of the lower classes, but without any kind of dramatic revolution.
Comrade, did Marx ever wonder about some possible halfway steps between the boot of capitalism and his commie utopia?
I haven't read Milton Friedman, and most likely never will, but the labor theory of value, bunk or not, is also a major tenet of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
"the labor theory of value," (up to then, I just accepted that Marxism was a load of bunk like somebody might accept that......Creation Science is a load of bunk), I concluded that this major tenet of Marxism was indeed bunk,
Why not? I read some Marx......
snifnow if feel rejected.
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Actually, they are older. Modern welfare has two big standing stones in the XIX century: Bismark and Pope Leo XIII. The first instituted the first state-sponsored pensions and healthcare. The second, through his encyclica Rerum Novarum, pushed for the implementation of minimum-wage laws and worker's rights, while proposing a middle way between the extremes of Communism and Capitalism.
Though there were some experiments prior to that, it was those two fundamental points that pretty much created the modern conception of welfare and labour.
Marx was alive when Bismark undertook his reforms (which were, in fact, meant to weaken Communist/Socialist parties in Prussia/Germany), and he was well-aware of the necessity for State-backed welfare; he considered it as a stepping stone toward the Communist Utopia.
After all, let's remember he's very specific about the types of countries where the Communist Revolution had to happen: Highly industrialized, productive societies, where the capitalists have already built the efficient infrastructure. He always expected Communism to take root in countries like England and Germany, not in places like Russia or Latin America.
It is quite tragic to his memory that the only places his ideas were taken seriously and executed were precisely the types of societies he specifically said were not fit for the transition into full Communism.
|
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.Actually, they are older. Modern welfare has two big standing stones in the XIX century: Bismark and Pope Leo XIII. The first instituted the first state-sponsored pensions and healthcare. The second, through his encyclica Rerum Novarum, pushed for the implementation of minimum-wage laws and worker's rights, while proposing a middle way between the extremes of Communism and Capitalism.
Though there were some experiments prior to that, it was those two fundamental points that pretty much created the modern conception of welfare and labour.
Marx was alive when Bismark undertook his reforms (which were, in fact, meant to weaken Communist/Socialist parties in Prussia/Germany), and he was well-aware of the necessity for State-backed welfare; he considered it as a stepping stone toward the Communist Utopia.
After all, let's remember he's very specific about the types of countries where the Communist Revolution had to happen: Highly industrialized, productive societies, where the capitalists have already built the efficient infrastructure. He always expected Communism to take root in countries like England and Germany, not in places like Russia or Latin America.
It is quite tragic to his memory that the only places his ideas were taken seriously and executed were precisely the types of societies he specifically said were not fit for the...
Reminds me of these "eco communes" that talk about how they live without money like it makes them superior, but they only manage to do so by scaveging from the "evil capitalists" waste
|
|
which means the mass of the earth didn't change that muchWhoa whoa whoa...what's this about the mass of the earth changing?
Even if the earth did expand, it would be an expansion of volume, not a change in mass.
It was a response to irontruth's implication that an expanding earth would have an impact on the moon. That would only occur if the expansion was from additional mass, which I think is highly unlikely in the time spans we are talking about.
|
|
I shouldn't, but I do find these kook science ideas fascinating.
If the Earth expanded to its present size from the size where the supercontinent Pangaea fit together and covered the whole world, merely as a result of an asteroid impact that increased its rotation, it should be possible to calculate, based on current rotation speed and what we know about the Earth's composition and density how fast it was spinning then.
Or more simply, how much of the Earth's current size is due to expansion from rotation? How much bigger is it than it would be at rest?
These are calculations those proposing the theory should attempt. Even a rough ballpark figure would be interesting.
From the first, you could also calculate the momentum necessary for asteroid to accomplish this. Assuming that you hadn't already ruled the possibility out.
First getting initial measurements are quite difficult, the earth is extremely huge and in constant motion, and has a constantly shifting shape.
Second, I have absolutely no computer at all, and I haven't got that far in mathmatics yet. When these two get fixed I'll be happy to drum up a few estimates. Of course need also to find all the secondaries that need accounting for, like the tiny amount of generally accepted mass increase, etc.
I just might hit a library if I get a day off.
Third, they need to nail down the centrifugal oddity of the fact that standing at a pole doesn't make you heavier then standing at the equator. Theoretically, the cetrifugal force would be greater at the equator then at the poles, and this would be measurable as a difference in weight, of course I may have just not yet heard about it.
Third, they need to nail down the centrifugal oddity of the fact that standing at a pole doesn't make you heavier then standing at the equator. Theoretically, the cetrifugal force would be greater at the equator then at the poles, and this would be measurable as a difference in weight, of course I may have just not yet heard about it.
Are you getting mass and momentum mixed up, or are you under the impression that speed makes things heavier?
The last is only kinda true near light speeds. If your planet is spinning fast enough that its using relativity to gain enough mass to get 14 atmospheres of pressure... you have other problems.(like no planet..)
Reminds me of these "eco communes" that talk about how they live without money like it makes them superior, but they only manage to do so by scaveging from the "evil capitalists" waste
If you thought we were scary when we were coming for your guns, wait till we come for that rusted pickup in your yard... :)
I haven't read Milton Friedman, and most likely never will, but the labor theory of value, bunk or not, is also a major tenet of Adam Smith and David Ricardo.
"the labor theory of value," (up to then, I just accepted that Marxism was a load of bunk like somebody might accept that......Creation Science is a load of bunk), I concluded that this major tenet of Marxism was indeed bunk,Why not? I read some Marx......
snif
now if feel rejected.
There's only so many books one can read, you know?
For example, if you have read only 15 pages of Das Kapital, then that's 14 more than I ever did. And, personally, I'd be much more interested in reading The Wealth of Nations than Capitalism and Freedom. I might try Keynes someday, but I hear he's pretty f@@!ing boring.
It might be that marx was only half wrong: he just couldn't see the possibility of a middle ground where the poor managed to get just a little from the rich: 40 hour work weeks, 2 weeks vacation, medicaid, welfare and social security etc effectively paid for by outsourcing the labor to third world countries.How could he? remember the era we're talking about. Slavery in the United States,Dickens style conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All those things you're talking about, that you're taking for granted now, they wouldn't exist ANYWHERE before the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal.
The specifics were of course unknowable. But an all or nothing fallacy should have been easier to spot. He's been oddly prescient in the rise of the lower classes, but without any kind of dramatic revolution.
Comrade, did Marx ever wonder about some possible halfway steps between the boot of capitalism and his commie utopia?
Yes; he thought that the working class could organize into trade unions and political parties as a stepping stone to: a) improve their immediate conditions; b) organize their strength, confidence and experience; c) prepare for the worldwide socialist revolution.
As I tried to indicate through a link and Comrade van der Kroft explicated in a post--the creation of the Bismarckian welfare state (well before FDR, btw) was a reaction to the creation of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. Not too different from the United States where the New Deal was passed because the masses were following the Communist Party and other red groups and having general strikes across the country.
I don't know anything about Leo XIII.
It is quite tragic to his memory that the only places his ideas were taken seriously and executed were precisely the types of societies he specifically said were not fit for the into full Communism.
Marx, of course, didn't think that any of the European countries were ready for a transition to full communism. What he did think was that conditions in France, England and Germany were ripe for successful proletarian revolutions that would lay the basis for constructing the first steps of socialism, certainly not full communism.
Either way, though, he expected those countries to be nothng more nor less than the opening shots of international proletarian socialist revolution. The slogan, after all, is "Workers of the world, unite!"
It was a response to irontruth's implication that an expanding earth would have an impact on the moon. That would only occur if the expansion was from additional mass, which I think is highly unlikely in the time spans we are talking about.which means the mass of the earth didn't change that muchWhoa whoa whoa...what's this about the mass of the earth changing?
Even if the earth did expand, it would be an expansion of volume, not a change in mass.
It's not just the mass, it's the location of the mass.
The primary effect that is transferring energy from the Earth to the Moon are the Earth's ocean's. If they were further away, that energy would be diminished. If there was the same amount of water as there is today, that would mean there would be significantly less land mass, which it's the tidal interaction with shallower areas that creates the friction necessary to transfer energy to the Moon. If there was less water, enough to make the landmasses look like they do today, but linked together, there wouldn't be enough water to account for tidal friction transference.
Your explanation doesn't work. Every Expanding Earth hypothesis has to ignore certain data or known scientific principles. Such as the entire field of rheology, which puts extreme doubt about Expanding Earth models.
Add in that we can calculate the size of the Earth from the magnetic signature in rocks up to 400 million years old (102±2.8% of today's size), which means dinosaurs existed on an Earth this size.
Of course the "conspirators" themselves told of the glacier error. Otherwise, it would look even more like a conspiracy, this way they had to settle for "people with lacking quality control that happen to be extremely enthusiastic about spreading the message of impending doom". It is not enough, however, to say that it is one error in 3000 pages. The fact that they took this data from a non scientific journal means directly that someone in their quality control machinery felt that the impact of the rest was not good enough, that the political impact of this data was more important than it being true, or simply did not check. All of these reasons show poor quality control or a cavalier attitude to truth compared to their Cause. Otherwise put: the same quality control they put the rest of the data through is inadequate. THAT is the very specific problem. Not whether that glacier will melt in thirty years or two hundred. So, yes, the IPCC has cooked their books, that is pretty well documented. It is interesting to note that their QC work has been discussed at length and is not, apparently, what you would call an open process. As I understand it, the politicos do the last view themselves. I believe Phil Jones himself complained about this process in one of the second climategate emails.
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.
Yeah. Come back when you have outgrown this inane conspiracy idea. Why would the IPPC do this? Because they like to mess with people. Sorry. It is just too unrealistic.
Sorry, just couldn't resist it.
You honestly did not understand my message there, Zombieneighbours? Really? Okay, I will explain it in a slower, louder voice next time.
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course the "conspirators" themselves told of the glacier error. Otherwise, it would look even more like a conspiracy, this way they had to settle for "people with lacking quality control that happen to be extremely enthusiastic about spreading the message of impending doom". It is not enough, however, to say that it is one error in 3000 pages. The fact that they took this data from a non scientific journal means directly that someone in their quality control machinery felt that the impact of the rest was not good enough, that the political impact of this data was more important than it being true, or simply did not check. All of these reasons show poor quality control or a cavalier attitude to truth compared to their Cause. Otherwise put: the same quality control they put the rest of the data through is inadequate. THAT is the very specific problem. Not whether that glacier will melt in thirty years or two hundred. So, yes, the IPCC has cooked their books, that is pretty well documented. It is interesting to note that their QC work has been discussed at length and is not, apparently, what you would call an open process. As I understand it, the politicos do the last view themselves. I believe Phil Jones himself complained about this process in one of the second climategate emails.
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.
Let me get this straight.
There have been one(maybe two)identified issues, and four smaller areas requiring additional work, with the fourth assessment report, a document of nearly three thousand page, at a small print size. A document with 450 lead authors, and 800 contributing authors, the vast majority of whom contributed their time for free, and that is a sign that the IPCC is lacking quality control.
The IPCC is an organisation with 10 full-time staff in its secretariat and small technical support staff, and it pulled of a level of accuracy in its work that most governmental and corporate bodies can only have wet dreams about, and it is a sign of conspiracy?
This is reality calling Sissyl, reality calling Sissyl. Come in Sissyl.
Occums Razor:
Which is more likely.
A small number of very minor mistakes got through into a very complex, multiples author report on a technical issue, and where later caught by people with a vested interest in keeping their work accurate.
or
the three working group chairs, the secutariat staff, support staff and 1250 unpaid contributors conspired to intentionally add errors, which they would later reveal as false to make their work look more credible.
Edit: Oh, and their doing it for the money, because many of them are highly qualified physicist, working in pure research academia, rather than in the private sector, so their clear in it for the money...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so? Sorry, I can't take you seriously if you can't back that up with evidence. And when you whine about a conspiracy to discredit AGW, it's again difficult to take you seriously.
Woah, who said that ? Not me. I wonder if you did misread my posts, or purposefully distorted them in bad faith.
I actually said : "A lot of people are trying hard, and received loads of money to do so(criticizing/challenging AGW)".
It doesn't translate in any language in "everyone who criticize AGW is being paid by Big Oil". It truly means that AGW is a legitimate field of research, and that trying to disprove is the standard operating procedure.
Where is the whining ?
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.
Here, you very conveniently forgot AGAIN about the counter example of a Big Oil funded scientist who ended up with pro AGW studies I provided you, that so far you failed to even comment (as I do provide elements to support my claims, and you don't so far).
So, I just made up my mind : you are NOT arguing in good faith, and I am NOT interested in discussing further with you. Have fun with your dreamt up conspiracy. I'm glad you aren't in charge.
You honestly did not understand my message there, Zombieneighbours? Really? Okay, I will explain it in a slower, louder voice next time.
We do understand your message, crystal clear. It's just it is inane.
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.Apparently not.
As I said: Finding such people is apparently not a problem. Your link doesn't exactly disprove what I said, right? Though the specific message may vary, it is pretty clear that if you have enough money, you can find someone to give you the numbers you want.
Zombieneighbours: At some point, someone in the process actually thought it was a good idea to insert this little bit of "data" into the Fourth Assessment Report. Not only that, but it got through the process even though a simple check on where it came from would have stopped it. Note that if it was a simple error, it would be equally likely to have gone either "direction", but, not surprisingly, it spoke of DOOM TO BEFALL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE UNLESS ACTION IS TAKEN NOW!!!!oneone!
You keep claiming my position is "those evil scientists are flat out faking data to destroy Justice, Truth and the American Way of Life". It never was. I am saying that there are a number of politicians at the top of this movement, and since there is an extreme political interest in excuses for increasing taxes, the IPCC and other big name groups have all the backing they want... so long as they keep saying the right thing, namely "The world is DOOOMED unless we ACT NOW!!!" The politicians have done their part in this, and recruited people to various leadership positions in the climate science field, paid research positions at universities, meteorological authorities, journal boards and so on, people who were saying "The world is DOOOMED unless we ACT NOW!!!". A surprising number of these people, politicians AND scientists, have long backgrounds in Greenpeace, the WWF, and so on.
It may well be that the science IS up to snuff. It may well be that the models ARE accurate. However, calling people deniers (with its clear association to Holocaust deniers) and screaming that everyone who thinks there are issues is paid by the Big Oil Conspiracy is not doing them any favours.
So everyone who criticizes AGW is being paid by Big Oil to do so? Sorry, I can't take you seriously if you can't back that up with evidence. And when you whine about a conspiracy to discredit AGW, it's again difficult to take you seriously.Woah, who said that ? Not me. I wonder if you did misread my posts, or purposefully distorted them in bad faith.
I actually said : "A lot of people are trying hard, and received loads of money to do so(criticizing/challenging AGW)".
It doesn't translate in any language in "everyone who criticize AGW is being paid by Big Oil". It truly means that AGW is a legitimate field of research, and that trying to disprove is the standard operating procedure.
Where is the whining ?
Understand that money IS a measure of loyalty for most people, and that their next paycheck is far more important than their integrity. Finding a scientist willing to find stuff supporting a specific viewpoint is no big deal.Here, you very conveniently forgot AGAIN about the counter example of a Big Oil funded scientist who ended up with pro AGW studies I provided you, that so far you failed to even comment (as I do provide elements to support my claims, and you don't so far).
So, I just made up my mind : you are NOT arguing in good faith, and I am NOT interested in discussing further with you. Have fun with your dreamt up conspiracy. I'm glad you aren't in charge.
I am sorry if I am sounding bitter in this, but I have just had a dozen pages of "You're not a climatologist so you can't criticize", "You're paranoid if you think there is a Conspiracy", "DENIER!", "There was nothing significant in anything the climategate emails said", "Everything you say is inane", "You can't prove that", and so on. It gets... wearying after a while.
Otherwise, it would look even more like a conspiracy,
You just argued that lack of evidence is evidence.
I just told you that they had an interest in not seeming to lie. I don't follow your reasoning.
Do you have proof of that intent?
In not being seen to lie? I need to prove that they would have such an interest? Are you serious?
You just argued that because they didn't act like a conspiracy, that proves they are a conspiracy.
The fact that they didn't act like a conspiracy is a lack of evidence.
What proof have us that you aren't part of the secret conspiracy, and just act like disbelieving AGW with the hidden purpose of making us all firmer in our convictions about it ?
If so, you are VERY successful...
Se where your kind of reasoning (hidden intents everywhere and lack of evidence trumps evidence) can lead to ?
It's hopeless. You are so far from rationality on this topic that we can't even reach you.
In not being seen to lie? I need to prove that they would have such an interest? Are you serious?
Everyone has an interest in being seen as truthful. Your point has successfully narrowed down the members of the IPCC as members of the human race.