|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 28, 2011 3:22:53 GMT
Money for climate AGW politics but not sure if the Social Security checks should go out. Of course Social Security has been taken from my paychecks for 52 years. Now the government has lost the money gambling on the great green monster. Well not to worry in China the aged get nothing! Not to worry the sewers run in the streets there too, soon enough the U.S. will follow. "We Get What We Pay For With Disastrous Climate Science" "A rapidly growing number of Americans are coming to distrust “scientific” climate report conclusions that emanate from authoritarian government and institutional sources — often with good reason. Such skepticism has arisen in part from revelations of conspiracies among influential researchers to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made climate change, withhold background data and suppress contrary findings evidenced in the “ClimateGate” scandal." "Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn’t come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”" sppiblog.org/news/we-get-what-we-pay-for-with-disastrous-climate-science#more-5683which just goes to show that not only is it a political agenda but that it both parties have perpetrated this hoax. Voting R is not better than voting D. You still get the same crap! |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 28, 2011 13:24:22 GMT
Ah think of the polar bears, think of the "science". Ah think of greenpeace and AGW activism. I just saw em there and why just reported them there and well its a mystery to me why all this controversy now. I mean how else could this possibly happen, why I was only the reporter. "APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation" "JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article." "Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press." news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.html |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 28, 2011 14:39:17 GMT
Ah think of the polar bears, think of the "science". Ah think of greenpeace and AGW activism. I just saw em there and why just reported them there and well its a mystery to me why all this controversy now. I mean how else could this possibly happen, why I was only the reporter. "APNewsBreak: Arctic scientist under investigation" "JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article." "Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press." news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-arctic-scientist-under-investigation-082217993.htmlThis is nothing new and not surprising at all. Nobody remembers the planted lynx hairs, nobody remembers that the guy who set the Klamath lake levels was commodore of the yacht club. There was one with bears too but I can't remember the specifics. Spotted owls, Salmon, fairy shrimp, red legged frogs etc etc etc. What about the bad DDT studies. Real people are dying over that one, nobody cares. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 29, 2011 21:31:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 29, 2011 23:24:55 GMT
Yes socold, and all those UAW workers caught smoking pot and drinking on company time? Their union will defend, and it is very difficult to fire them. The videos may secure their demise, but the union is there to protect everyone, even the worthless bums. All those stories people about union workers milking the system? They're true. How do I know? I've been working in this industry for nearly 30 years. I remember one plant where employees would pay into a pool for one person to punch them in and out of work while the rest take the day off. Then they'd rotate to the next person. It's even worse for municipal unions. You do realize government workers have special privileges not much different than UAW workers, probably better. It's near impossible to fire government/academic employees. Of course he's going to say it's all a setup and he's being treated unfairly, and maybe it is, but those types of complaints are SOP to save their hide. I doubt he'll get canned anyway, maybe just reprimanded and early retirement. The average worker? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 29, 2011 23:29:06 GMT
Yes socold, and all those UAW workers caught smoking pot and drinking on company time? Their union will defend, and it is very difficult to fire them. The videos may secure their demise, but the union is there to protect everyone, even the worthless bums. All those stories people about union workers milking the system? They're true. How do I know? I've been working in this industry for nearly 30 years. I remember one plant where employees would pay into a pool for one person to punch them in and out of work while the rest take the day off. Then they'd rotate to the next person. It's even worse for municipal unions. You do realize government workers have special privileges not much different than UAW workers, probably better. It's near impossible to fire government/academic employees. Of course he's going to say it's all a setup and he's being treated unfairly, and maybe it is, but those types of complaints are SOP to save their hide. I doubt he'll get canned anyway, maybe just reprimanded and early retirement. The average worker? Don't let the door hit you on the way out. They'll promote him out or he will make a lateral move. He will stay employed though. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 30, 2011 0:25:36 GMT
Yes socold, and all those UAW workers caught smoking pot and drinking on company time? Their union will defend, and it is very difficult to fire them. The videos may secure their demise, but the union is there to protect everyone, even the worthless bums. Given the investigation is apparently criminal, if he is guilty presumably he would be imprisoned. I am more interested in why he is being investigated though, and who triggered it. A number of things don't seem to make sense. First of all the transcripts of the interview go into a lot of detail about the 2006 polar bear paper. But now they are claiming the investigation isn't about that paper. So I wonder why they discussed it in so much detail in an interview? It's a criminal investigation. That's another clue. My first thought would be that it was about misuse of funds, but apparently the motions into this investigation have taken quite some time before his computer and notes were taken and I think if there was any question about misuse of funds he would have been more rapid. Plus they wouldn't have talked about the details of a polar bear paper. I also hear that for a long time he was under pressure to "shut up" about the polar bear stuff from higher up. See we have these datapoints - criminal investigation, detailed discussion of a polar bear paper, prior attempts to shut him him, time taken before taking his notes and computer - and they are just inconsistent. But one alternative and disturbing theory fits all these datapoints quite well. The theory that this is an attempt to discredit him and shut down his line of research. That would explain the fishing-expedition like interview into the paper, it would explain the lack of mention of what he's being investigated for (if it's a fishing-expedition presumably they don't know themselves - possibly the polar bear paper is only now said to not be under investigation because they didn't find anything there to latch onto). It would also be in line with previous attempts to silence him. Although the one thing that really doesn't make sense about the "silencing-him" theory, is why anyone would risk it given that inevitably we are going to find out where the accusations that triggered the investigation came from, what the accusations are, and of course that the bulk of the public are quite against silencing of scientists. So I have popcorn in hand watching what comes of this. Perhaps he will be "disappeared". The polar bear paper is here btw: www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 30, 2011 0:49:59 GMT
Yes socold, and all those UAW workers caught smoking pot and drinking on company time? Their union will defend, and it is very difficult to fire them. The videos may secure their demise, but the union is there to protect everyone, even the worthless bums. Given the investigation is apparently criminal, if he is guilty presumably he would be imprisoned. I am more interested in why he is being investigated though, and who triggered it. A number of things don't seem to make sense. First of all the transcripts of the interview go into a lot of detail about the 2006 polar bear paper. But now they are claiming the investigation isn't about that paper. So I wonder why they discussed it in so much detail in an interview? It's a criminal investigation. That's another clue. My first thought would be that it was about misuse of funds, but apparently the motions into this investigation have taken quite some time before his computer and notes were taken and I think if there was any question about misuse of funds he would have been more rapid. Plus they wouldn't have talked about the details of a polar bear paper. I also hear that for a long time he was under pressure to "shut up" about the polar bear stuff from higher up. See we have these datapoints - criminal investigation, detailed discussion of a polar bear paper, prior attempts to shut him him, time taken before taking his notes and computer - and they are just inconsistent. But one alternative and disturbing theory fits all these datapoints quite well. The theory that this is an attempt to discredit him and shut down his line of research. That would explain the fishing-expedition like interview into the paper, it would explain the lack of mention of what he's being investigated for (if it's a fishing-expedition presumably they don't know themselves - possibly the polar bear paper is only now said to not be under investigation because they didn't find anything there to latch onto). It would also be in line with previous attempts to silence him. Although the one thing that really doesn't make sense about the "silencing-him" theory, is why anyone would risk it given that inevitably we are going to find out where the accusations that triggered the investigation came from, what the accusations are, and of course that the bulk of the public are quite against silencing of scientists. So I have popcorn in hand watching what comes of this. Perhaps he will be "disappeared". The polar bear paper is here btw: www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdfThe most radical environmental anti-energy administration in U.S. history is going to lynch one of their own useful idiots? Puhleeze. The connection to the Shell oil thing is well, I don't know....over the top? I've read the paper now, and come away with A) the polar bear paper is a joke to begin with. I mean his wife was one of the "reviewers"? Flying since 1999, see 3 dead bears in one day and extrapolate out for decades? Give me a break. B) It is much more than a crappy paper and he's in deep doo doo for something else, like embezzlement or worse. I like butter on my popcorn, but hold the salt. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 1:34:16 GMT
The most radical environmental anti-energy administration in U.S. history is going to lynch one of their own useful idiots? Puhleeze. The connection to the Shell oil thing is well, I don't know....over the top? I've read the paper now, and come away with A) the polar bear paper is a joke to begin with. I mean his wife was one of the "reviewers"? Flying since 1999, see 3 dead bears in one day and extrapolate out for decades? Give me a break. B) It is much more than a crappy paper and he's in deep doo doo for something else, like embezzlement or worse. I like butter on my popcorn, but hold the salt. Man, you sure like to insult people and accuse them with no reason, don't you? The investigation is about the polar bear paper. I am sure they are going over every email and file hoping to find something for the witch hunt, but there was no probable cause. Please send ALL YOUR files and YOUR computer to them for investigation at taxpayers' cost as YOU have shown AT LEAST as much evidence of malfeasance. You "skeptics" will believe anything (except the truth). |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 30, 2011 1:35:02 GMT
Given the investigation is apparently criminal, if he is guilty presumably he would be imprisoned. I am more interested in why he is being investigated though, and who triggered it. A number of things don't seem to make sense. First of all the transcripts of the interview go into a lot of detail about the 2006 polar bear paper. But now they are claiming the investigation isn't about that paper. So I wonder why they discussed it in so much detail in an interview? It's a criminal investigation. That's another clue. My first thought would be that it was about misuse of funds, but apparently the motions into this investigation have taken quite some time before his computer and notes were taken and I think if there was any question about misuse of funds he would have been more rapid. Plus they wouldn't have talked about the details of a polar bear paper. I also hear that for a long time he was under pressure to "shut up" about the polar bear stuff from higher up. See we have these datapoints - criminal investigation, detailed discussion of a polar bear paper, prior attempts to shut him him, time taken before taking his notes and computer - and they are just inconsistent. But one alternative and disturbing theory fits all these datapoints quite well. The theory that this is an attempt to discredit him and shut down his line of research. That would explain the fishing-expedition like interview into the paper, it would explain the lack of mention of what he's being investigated for (if it's a fishing-expedition presumably they don't know themselves - possibly the polar bear paper is only now said to not be under investigation because they didn't find anything there to latch onto). It would also be in line with previous attempts to silence him. Although the one thing that really doesn't make sense about the "silencing-him" theory, is why anyone would risk it given that inevitably we are going to find out where the accusations that triggered the investigation came from, what the accusations are, and of course that the bulk of the public are quite against silencing of scientists. So I have popcorn in hand watching what comes of this. Perhaps he will be "disappeared". The polar bear paper is here btw: www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdfThe most radical environmental anti-energy administration in U.S. history is going to lynch one of their own useful idiots? Puhleeze. The connection to the Shell oil thing is well, I don't know....over the top? I've read the paper now, and come away with A) the polar bear paper is a joke to begin with. I mean his wife was one of the "reviewers"? Flying since 1999, see 3 dead bears in one day and extrapolate out for decades? Give me a break. B) It is much more than a crappy paper and he's in deep doo doo for something else, like embezzlement or worse. I like butter on my popcorn, but hold the salt.  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 30, 2011 8:53:37 GMT
The most radical environmental anti-energy administration in U.S. history is going to lynch one of their own useful idiots? Puhleeze. The connection to the Shell oil thing is well, I don't know....over the top? I am thinking more of some shadowy group which has decided to raise "allegations" in a way that have to be investigated. Afterall we neither know what the accusations are or who has made them. It might not matter what administration is in place, nor would I expect the current one to be immune to hounding scientists anyway. He didn't extrapolate it out. He argued that the deaths were probably due to the storm in the area and pointed out that there is some indication that such conditions might become more common in the future. The paper is quite good. It's really bringing to light the issue of bears swimming in open water and drowning in storms. It's not stating definite conclusions - afterall the scarcity of data doesn't allow anything to be said for sure - it's pointing at the subject as one to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 30, 2011 9:27:49 GMT
He didn't extrapolate it out.
LOL!
Monnett: "And so we based, uh, our extrapolation to only bears on transects, because we‟re saying that the transects, the, the swaths we flew, represented I think it was 11 percent of the entire habitat that, you know, that could have had dead polar bears in it."
You should have read the article before making a fool of yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 15:07:28 GMT
He didn't extrapolate it out. LOL! Monnett: "And so we based, uh, our extrapolation to only bears on transects, because we‟re saying that the transects, the, the swaths we flew, represented I think it was 11 percent of the entire habitat that, you know, that could have had dead polar bears in it."You should have read the article before making a fool of yourself. You should have read the post before making a fool of yourself. The extrapolation that wasn't done was one of time, not geography. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Aug 1, 2011 4:04:07 GMT
Ah yes reality and the government, as usual at odds with one another. "As Germany Cools, Projections Of Warming Heat Up" "The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) has a story on the German Weather Service, and temperature trends for Germany, which are a good indicator for Central Europe.  Cooling in Germany has been accelerating A few days ago the Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD, (German Weather Service) in a press release warned that Germany’s temperature were likely to rise 2 to 4°C by the year 2100 and that action was necessary. Like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) the DWD too has been transformed into a propaganda mouthpiece for Germany’s powerful government-driven global warming movement. But there’s a small problem at the DWD. Like the outlier sea level projections made by the PIK, the temperature projections made by the DWD just don’t match observations. For example Germany’s annual temperature over the last 11 years has shown COOLING, and not warming, see chart above produced by EIKE. " icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/as_germany_cools_projections_of_warming_heat_up/ |
|
|
|
Post by juancarnuba on Aug 3, 2011 17:11:13 GMT
1. Not a lie, would you like to see a picture of my home? 2. Wrong again, 214lbs of solid beefcake plus I spent ALL of last week hauling around 8 people counting myself. The eight of us weighted in at about 800lbs. (Three kids) Not counting fishing gear, firearms, coolers, n stuff. 3. Nothing made up, I live in Alaska and the fish are running!!! :-) So take your stats and put them in your Prius! You sure are a fatty. You need to lose weight! You aren't doing yourself any favors. A Prius with a trailer will satisfy all your needs quite well. By using a dinosaur, you are just hurting everybody else. Shame on you. Richard, are you saying that you believe fossil fuels come from dinosaurs? Yeah, that will increase your intellectual standing here. Besides that Slim, holier than thou ad hominems are a waste of our time. |
|
