|
Post by stranger on Nov 28, 2011 2:56:23 GMT
We spend more on defense than all other countries combined? Better go back to square one on that. China's stated defense expenditures to maintain the four million man People's Army, is about one sixth of reality. The cost of a submarine built by 2.5 renmembi, 36 cents an hour, labor is roughly one sixteenth the cost of an American submarine. A Chinese AK-47 goes for the equivalent of $53.00 each on the world market, compared to $1,600 for an M-16. A main line Russian or Chinese fighter aircraft will cost about one fifth of an American equivalent. And so on and on and on.
Here in the real world and in real terms, we spend about half as much on "defense" as China, and 80 percent as much as Russia. As a fraction of GDP, less than that.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 28, 2011 3:01:24 GMT
Stranger, I will take 1 of our submarines vs. 16 of theirs any old day. I think history has shown that our fighters are worth at least five of any Russian/Chinese non equivalent. Do you work for a defense contractor?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 28, 2011 6:13:02 GMT
Stranger, I will take 1 of our submarines vs. 16 of theirs any old day. I think history has shown that our fighters are worth at least five of any Russian/Chinese non equivalent. Do you work for a defense contractor? I remember in 1990 there were many worried that Iraq was going to lead us to the slaughter. I remember it well because I was working in Aerospace during that time. The company I worked for did a lot of defense work; we made virtually all the intermediate compressor section stators for the Abrams tanks and helicopters (Lycoming engines) which wore out more quickly due to desert conditions, intake lead vanes for the F100 engines and other components. I've owned a Chinese made AK47.....they are cheap junk. I agree our military equipment has been of much higher quality and far superior than Soviet/Chinese counterparts, however in recent years many of our components are coming from......China, and they are substandard. I know from first hand experience being involved in a whistle blower situation (I was not the whistle blower but did testify) in the early 1990's, this is very serious. Details here (many more links out there), and it isn't limited to the P8: defensetech.org/2011/11/08/counterfeit-parts-found-on-new-p-8-posiedons/That said, back to the OP. In light of the many new revelations in the climategate emails, are you still willing with a straight face to stand by what your said earlier, particularly the first parts? Magellan, there is no scheme, no control of information or data. The preponderance of evidence is leading fair and balanced scientists towards man made global warming. As a semi-skeptic I have no problem with the science behind the observations. My problem with AGW is with the "projections" which have proven far less than accurate and much more of a pseudo science than the "observations".
How long have you been following this AGW thing? How thoroughly? I have since 1988. How can you say there was no control of information or data, or that it is "fair and balanced scientists" doing the science? If your problem is with the "projections", that IS the end result of the "preponderance of evidence". If you go back to the early days of this forum (pre climategate), you'll find the harsh criticisms and accusations by some of us here have been completely vindicated by the emails, right down to the "peer review" process being little more than pal review controlled by a small number of individuals willing to corrupt the entire scientific industry to promote their own political agendas, not to mention their overinflated egos. We didn't need climategate; the hockey stick fraud was plenty enough, but if for those have been keeping close track of the AGW issue, there are so many examples of dishonest science being foisted on the public it would take some considerable time to look it all up again. A small group of "scientists" accumulated an enormous amount of power to control the entire process and keep outsiders from spoiling their party. It is corrupt to the core. I must say when first reading your response I thought you must be kidding. You're not? I'm wondering what your sources are to come to such a conclusion. IPCC? If there is one person who knows how the scheme works better than anyone, it is Steve McIntyre, the man who brought it all out into the open, and after years of obfuscation, coverups, withholding (controlling) of information on several matters including the hockey stick by the Team, is more than vindicated. Whenever I want the facts, CA is where I go. climateaudit.org/For others who do think there is more to these emails, may I suggest reading this: Pointman — A dead mans hand detonator on hidden emails may protect ClimateGate whistleblowerIn the high powered risky game of whistleblowing there are ways to make the the leaker a less attractive target.
Pointman analyzes the ClimateGate whistleblower’s tactics and explains why he, she or they probably released those other 200,000 emails but kept them hidden behind the 4000-8000 character almost unbreakable password. He points out there are no emails released yet between key scientists and people in power, hence the worst, most damaging emails may be kept under a ” dead man’s hand detonator”. If politicians are afraid of what might be in those released-but-hidden emails, they may not want to expose or attack the whistleblower for fear of unleashing the other emails. The hidden emails buy the whistleblower protection.
Jo
That is one aspect I never considered.
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Nov 28, 2011 7:19:37 GMT
The Chinese currency is devalued, and their labor is cheap, that does not change the economics. We spend more in real dollar terms than all other countries combined on defense, 'tis a fact. Hard to argue with those, facts are true. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States"The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority)." I really wish facts were more a part of the discussion on this section of the board.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Nov 28, 2011 12:51:08 GMT
"Google has hits on most of the quotes."
Does it give a proper reference as well?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 28, 2011 15:55:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Nov 28, 2011 15:59:36 GMT
Magellan, I'm afraid your contribution will not shed light on the origins of the supposed quotes in the list given in "Reply #40 on Nov 26, 2011, 11:50pm" of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 28, 2011 16:02:01 GMT
Magellan, Do you really wan't to get in a link war citing the number of credible scientists that concur with the scientific consensus on manmade global warming? It really has been hashed out on these boards for years.
If you think these emails are the "smoking gun" that proves a scientific or political conspiracy to commit fraud please point out the specific emails.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 28, 2011 22:22:47 GMT
Magellan, Do you really wan't to get in a link war citing the number of credible scientists that concur with the scientific consensus on manmade global warming? It really has been hashed out on these boards for years.
If you think these emails are the "smoking gun" that proves a scientific or political conspiracy to commit fraud please point out the specific emails.
What is your definition of credible?
Are Drs. Pielke (sr and jr), Lindzen, Spencer, Akasofu, Easterbrook, Curry, Cristy, Happer, and Svensmark for starters credible?
If not why not!
Do you find somebody credible whose job it is to know and publicly represents that no credible science opposition exists, that the science is settled?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 29, 2011 1:49:56 GMT
Magellan, Do you really wan't to get in a link war citing the number of credible scientists that concur with the scientific consensus on manmade global warming? It really has been hashed out on these boards for years. If you think these emails are the "smoking gun" that proves a scientific or political conspiracy to commit fraud please point out the specific emails. Magellan, Do you really wan't to get in a link war citing the number of credible scientists that concur with the scientific consensus on manmade global warming? Oh yes, the "9 out of 10 dentists recommend Crest" axiom. I digress. I never called the climategate emails the smoking gun did I? What is it with some people that must put words in others mouths? It was James Hansen who coined the term "smoking gun", the absolute "proof", the "fingerprint" of AGW.....poof....it shot blanks. Skeptics didn't state the basic physics dictate which part of the atmosphere should be warming the fastest, your "consensus" politburo did. We didn't make the multitude of claims that turned out to be wrong, it was those you think have the "preponderance of evidence" that did. And it will always inevitably come down to climate models being the "evidence", which isn't evidence at all. That seems to be a hanging chad for you folks. The argument is they aren't perfect, but are good enough. Well glennkoks, they damn well have to be perfect or they are useless! You don't get to pick and choose which parts are valid or invalid; either they've got the physics right or they don't. Get one part wrong and the whole model is SCRAP. That's the way it works in any industry, but somehow climate "science" gets special rules that allows moving of the goal posts during the game; the players are the referees. The hockey stick [model] was the Crown Jewel for AGW, didn't you know that? So was 700m OHC [model], so was the "hot spot", the basic physics [model]), blah blah blah...... all based on faulty models. I only need to show you one to shoot the whole damn thing down in flames; the "basic physics" as we're told is the basis for AGW "science", the very one that sucked me into the scam in 1988. But go ahead, we've been down this road many times, and after you're through exhausting the same worn out AGW talking points and logical fallacies, we'll be right back to the beginning; there is ZERO direct evidence that CO2 has any net affect on global temperature, and that it is largely based on multiple assumptions of how the climate system works. Pull away the curtain and its a bunch of bumpkins pulling levers on GCM's, to borrow a phrase. For every quote you can find you think is evidence, I can find contradictory ones, both in the emails and long before the Climategate issue. You could list 100 references, and it will take only one to bust their nuts. It is likely that you think Appeal To Popularity is your friend. Be careful Oh hell, just make it easy and do what most AGW'rs do....tell us to read the IPCC report.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 29, 2011 2:09:21 GMT
Magellan, I'm afraid your contribution will not shed light on the origins of the supposed quotes in the list given in "Reply #40 on Nov 26, 2011, 11:50pm" of this thread. Sorry, I thought you were referring to the CG2 emails, which you apparently think are fake along with these. I recognize a few of them in the quote list; Ehrlich, Strong and Schneider, but I guess you'll either have to look them up yourself or join the grassy knoll club. Nonetheless, I'll help you look one up for Ehrlich: is.gd/WwPxrH Why am I familiar with Paul Ehrlich? Because 25 or so years ago I read his book so I'd understand the minds of crazy nutbags in the world that I now know wish me and my family harm.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 29, 2011 2:51:57 GMT
Here's some more hear no evil see no evil speak no evil for glennkoks. After looking at more and more of these climategate2 emails.....I'm changing the status to "smoking gun". Now you can quote me correctly. glennkoks said: Magellan, there is no scheme, no control of information or data. The preponderance of evidence is leading fair and balanced scientists towards man made global warming. As a semi-skeptic I have no problem with the science behind the observations. Fair and balanced? Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil JonesLet's here the spin glennkoks. You gonna follow through and bombard us with "facts", that being all the impartial scientists agreeing the other impartial scientists on the certainty of man made global warming?
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Nov 29, 2011 3:48:05 GMT
Magellan/icefisher, there are extremists and alarmists in the AGW camp for certain. I never claimed that they are all impartial. My only claim is that from what I have read there is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud.
There are a few credible skeptics for sure, however they are in the minority. I certainly don't think that AGW is a popularity contest. I am no climate scientist. I make my living drilling for fossil fuels so what little knowledge I have on the subject comes from years of reading and self eduction on the issue.
Once again can you point the way to an email that suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud? Or just more long winded rants about "see no evil". The title of this post is climategate 2.0 is it not?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 29, 2011 4:33:54 GMT
Once again can you point the way to an email that suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud? Or just more long winded rants about "see no evil". The title of this post is climategate 2.0 is it not?
Seems fraudulent to misrepresent science as settled to me. I am of a profession I would go to jail for such an indiscretion and if I conspired with others in my profession to make that misrepresentation for political purposes I would be guilty of conspiracy as well.
Its one thing to argue strongly an opinion that might be contrary to others and quite another to misrepresent that there are no other opinions from credible sources.
In my view transgressing that line has caused harm to have been done, not just to the public but also to science. Dr Curry has been an advocate of AGW but she has been unwilling to cross that line despite a great deal of pressure from those who have crossed the line.
Credibility is so much more than a good CV or even being right. The climategate emails describe a conspiracy to manipulate political processes by lies and fiat. . . .and none of that requires any particular answer for the what effects of CO2 are to determine that.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Nov 29, 2011 6:04:17 GMT
Magellan/icefisher, there are extremists and alarmists in the AGW camp for certain. I never claimed that they are all impartial. My only claim is that from what I have read there is no worldwide conspiracy to commit fraud. There are a few credible skeptics for sure, however they are in the minority. I certainly don't think that AGW is a popularity contest. I am no climate scientist. I make my living drilling for fossil fuels so what little knowledge I have on the subject comes from years of reading and self eduction on the issue. Once again can you point the way to an email that suggests a conspiracy to commit fraud? Or just more long winded rants about "see no evil". The title of this post is climategate 2.0 is it not? Ah, so it isn't just plain fraud, it is conspiracy to commit fraud. Without even thinking, there is 'Mikes Nature trick'. Again, what is the definition of fraud? a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be Take the blinders off. His 'Team' knew the hockey stick was junk, and even said so in this batch of emails. Yet, they, the fair and balanced scientists, remained silent.
|
|