EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1347 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 ... 90  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:38 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Quote:
Few Accusations of Fraudulent Behavior – So Far

Climate change is a scientific issue. Rejoinders to climate change are policy matters. Lying — or fabricating hoaxes — about science and policy are typically accepted.

Each side of the debate has stayed busy pointing accusatory fingers at their antagonists and yelling fraud. Fraud about scientific methods, data, interpretation of data and so on. So far charges of fraud for monetary gain has been few and far between.

Despite the length of time that climate change has been debated, there have been zero — zero — instances of individuals being successfully indicted on fraud charges dealing specifically with climate change.

Only one individual, a climate-change guru with the Environmental Protection Agency, has been charged with lying and fraud. Those charges weren’t even about his work at the EPA, but rather lies about being on the CIA payroll.

John Beale will spend 30 months in federal prison for bilking the EPA out of over $1 million in salary and other benefits while claiming to be “deep undercover” for the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan.

That may be starting to change.

As the science of climate change begins its fourth decade, some businesses and individuals are caught up in more than just perpetuating hoaxes and are being brought to task for lying and fraud.


Behind every cult is a money machine. That's what gives it life. We have already covered that aspect.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:42 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Quote:
Exxon

Exxon may be in trouble over lying about climate change. If Exxon Mobile knowingly funded misleading research as a part of a plan to convince American voters, their lie goes beyond policy statements and morphs into a business decision.

Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change. If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.

The company has begun disclosing potential environmental risks recently, but whether those disclosers are sufficient is a matter of public debate and maybe a centerpiece for the trial.

Climategate

In 2009, climate change alarmists scrambled to save face after hackers stole hundreds of emails from a British university and released them online.

Pirated from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the documents purported to reveal researchers were engaging in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time.

The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words. Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change.


Now fence sitters. If I'm the oil companies I'd be salivating to get this case into court. You know why? Because discovery is a real bitch. That's when I get to put all these fraudsters and cultist on the stand under oath, and I get to dispose them. At that point a whole bunch of crap that they don't want public is going to go under the spot light. Trust me they don't want that. If they thought they could survive that the Environ-Mental-ists (tm Goose5) would have filed decades ago.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 1:46 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Quote:
RICO Charges

A group of 20 university professors want to get the federal government to prosecute climate change doubters. The group posted a letter to the White House in September and matched those who are doubtful concerning man-made global warming to the tobacco industry.

The group’s idea are similar to those used against the tobacco industry from 1999 until 2006. That RICO investigation played a role in preventing the tobacco industry from maintaining the deception of Americans about the hazards of smoking.

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that are becoming apparent as in the Exxon case, it is important that the misdeeds be stopped so that America can get on with the important business of finding the truth about climate change.


And, we have already covered this. Nice platitude at the end here. This guy seems to think Exxon is in some sort of legal jeopardy. I don't. Bring this case to trial. Let's have at it finally. Simple fact of the matter is nothing can be conclusively proved and that spells problems for the plaintiff.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:01 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Quote:
Few Accusations of Fraudulent Behavior – So Far

Climate change is a scientific issue. Rejoinders to climate change are policy matters. Lying — or fabricating hoaxes — about science and policy are typically accepted.

Each side of the debate has stayed busy pointing accusatory fingers at their antagonists and yelling fraud. Fraud about scientific methods, data, interpretation of data and so on. So far charges of fraud for monetary gain has been few and far between.

Despite the length of time that climate change has been debated, there have been zero — zero — instances of individuals being successfully indicted on fraud charges dealing specifically with climate change.

Only one individual, a climate-change guru with the Environmental Protection Agency, has been charged with lying and fraud. Those charges weren’t even about his work at the EPA, but rather lies about being on the CIA payroll.

John Beale will spend 30 months in federal prison for bilking the EPA out of over $1 million in salary and other benefits while claiming to be “deep undercover” for the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan.

That may be starting to change.

As the science of climate change begins its fourth decade, some businesses and individuals are caught up in more than just perpetuating hoaxes and are being brought to task for lying and fraud.


Behind every cult is a money machine. That's what gives it life. We have already covered that aspect.


Meaning that you have already posted the lies pertaining to the money aspect? Yes. Now you are quoting a blog entry by a criminal attorney on the subject of climate change, of which I am sure he must be an expert.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 27, 2015 4:05 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Quote:
Exxon

Exxon may be in trouble over lying about climate change. If Exxon Mobile knowingly funded misleading research as a part of a plan to convince American voters, their lie goes beyond policy statements and morphs into a business decision.

Prosecutors are after Exxon for lying to people who might not have bought gasoline if they knew the true story behind climate change. If Exxon Mobile began disclosing the business risks of climate change when it understood them will be a focus of the New York case currently underway.

The company has begun disclosing potential environmental risks recently, but whether those disclosers are sufficient is a matter of public debate and maybe a centerpiece for the trial.

Climategate

In 2009, climate change alarmists scrambled to save face after hackers stole hundreds of emails from a British university and released them online.

Pirated from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, the documents purported to reveal researchers were engaging in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. As a matter of fact, fraud is a Federal offense punishable by long prison time.

The good thing is that false scientists, and their alarmism, will be countered now with their own words. Reliable researchers are still compiling the information for a publication that could shake the nation’s foundation on climate change.


Now fence sitters. If I'm the oil companies I'd be salivating to get this case into court. You know why? Because discovery is a real bitch. That's when I get to put all these fraudsters and cultist on the stand under oath, and I get to dispose them. At that point a whole bunch of crap that they don't want public is going to go under the spot light. Trust me they don't want that. If they thought they could survive that the Environ-Mental-ists (tm Goose5) would have filed decades ago.



Really? The oil companies would have a very hard time claiming the scientists were frauds considering they reached the same conclusions and decided to hide their knowledge, which is the reason for the investigation. Much like when the tobacco companies conspired to hide the impact of tobacco use on health and ultimately got them caught up in the RICO aspect.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:21 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Worth a look fence sitters.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/63596714

I'll apologize in advance. You're going to have to sit through a few ads to view the whole thing.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Interesting.

http://www.thegwpf.com/how-to-get-rid-o ... use-again/

Quote:
It is a scientifically convoluted sentence. The hiatus refers to the global annual average surface temperature which is just what it says it is. It is also confirmed by lower atmospheric temperature measurements made via satellites. Together they provide an interesting perspective on the problems of data collection, particularly the gaps and the infilling of ground measurements. It is fair to say that nobody expected a period of about 15-years with no increase in these measurements and it is therefore a valid talking point raising questions about model-data comparisons. Some say global warming has stopped but that is different from the existence of the hiatus. One should be careful in assuming that a hiatus in these datasets is akin to a similar hiatus in “global warming” so language must be used more carefully than this. My impression is that sloppyness in the language used in this paper actually determines some of its conclusions. The paper continues: “In the public sphere, the claim that global warming has “stopped” has long been a contrarian talking point. After being confined to the media and internet blogs for some time, this contrarian framing eventually found entry into the scientific literature.” The paper continues: “The notion of a “pause” or “hiatus” demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct.” This misrepresents what actually happened. The first mention of a pause was in 2006 and by 2008 it was being discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, those who have read the Climategate emails will be aware that, according to one scientist, the scientific community knew all about it and had, in private, either dismissed it or were somewhat worried. The hiatus was incorporated into peer-reviewed literature independently of what was going on in blogs. It originated from Robert Carter, former professor of earth science at James Cook University in Australia. Was he outside the scientific community at the time? The paper is also wrong in its claim that the hiatus is “ineluctably tied to the contrarian claim that global warming has stopped.” What the authors fail to appreciate is that the motivation of most sceptics, like scientists, is to find out what is going on and what is happening to surface and lower atmospheric temperatures. One may argue that this has been good for science as nowadays we have a very different view of decadal climatic variations than we did a decade ago. Remember that were we told that mankind’s temperature signature was dominant. Today we are told that the decadal variations are dominant and we have to wait a while for the anthropogenic signal to emerge. This is a fundamental turn around for climate science. -


Where I'm from its called CYA, or back peddling to cover the fact that you were wrong in the first place.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:39 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/france-puts-g ... 54386.html

Quote:
STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - France has put 24 green activists under house arrest ahead of the United Nations climate talks, using emergency laws put in place following the Paris shootings, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said on Saturday.


Oh, the shoe is on the other foot now. How do you like them apples?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:34 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Worth a look fence sitters.

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/63596714

I'll apologize in advance. You're going to have to sit through a few ads to view the whole thing.


The ads made more sense and were more honest than the circus show.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:39 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Interesting.

http://www.thegwpf.com/how-to-get-rid-o ... use-again/

Quote:
It is a scientifically convoluted sentence. The hiatus refers to the global annual average surface temperature which is just what it says it is. It is also confirmed by lower atmospheric temperature measurements made via satellites. Together they provide an interesting perspective on the problems of data collection, particularly the gaps and the infilling of ground measurements. It is fair to say that nobody expected a period of about 15-years with no increase in these measurements and it is therefore a valid talking point raising questions about model-data comparisons. Some say global warming has stopped but that is different from the existence of the hiatus. One should be careful in assuming that a hiatus in these datasets is akin to a similar hiatus in “global warming” so language must be used more carefully than this. My impression is that sloppyness in the language used in this paper actually determines some of its conclusions. The paper continues: “In the public sphere, the claim that global warming has “stopped” has long been a contrarian talking point. After being confined to the media and internet blogs for some time, this contrarian framing eventually found entry into the scientific literature.” The paper continues: “The notion of a “pause” or “hiatus” demonstrably originated outside the scientific community, and it likely found entry into the scientific discourse because of the constant challenge by contrarian voices that are known to affect scientific communication and conduct.” This misrepresents what actually happened. The first mention of a pause was in 2006 and by 2008 it was being discussed in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, those who have read the Climategate emails will be aware that, according to one scientist, the scientific community knew all about it and had, in private, either dismissed it or were somewhat worried. The hiatus was incorporated into peer-reviewed literature independently of what was going on in blogs. It originated from Robert Carter, former professor of earth science at James Cook University in Australia. Was he outside the scientific community at the time? The paper is also wrong in its claim that the hiatus is “ineluctably tied to the contrarian claim that global warming has stopped.” What the authors fail to appreciate is that the motivation of most sceptics, like scientists, is to find out what is going on and what is happening to surface and lower atmospheric temperatures. One may argue that this has been good for science as nowadays we have a very different view of decadal climatic variations than we did a decade ago. Remember that were we told that mankind’s temperature signature was dominant. Today we are told that the decadal variations are dominant and we have to wait a while for the anthropogenic signal to emerge. This is a fundamental turn around for climate science. -


Where I'm from its called CYA, or back peddling to cover the fact that you were wrong in the first place.


Can you give the references to where it was stated that mankinds temperature signature was dominant? I have read so many of the papers discussing when the human impact was finally able to be seen over the natural variation. Perhaps it is something taken out of context from those papers, but without a specific reference it is anyone's guess.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:18 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... djustments

Quote:
A team of top scientists and experts is launching a major inquiry into the integrity, or lack thereof, of the surface temperature data often cited by anthropogenic (man-made) global-warming theorists to justify their alarmism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation announced on April 26. Minor increases in the world’s surface temperature data, which is admittedly “adjusted” by governments for various reasons, has been key to demanding global policies restricting carbon emissions and economic freedom to supposedly fight climate change ever since the man-made “global cooling” theory imploded after its heyday in the 1970s. However, if the inquiry ends up confirming widely held suspicions that the warming data is inaccurate or even outright fraudulent, the entire climate-alarmism industry could be permanently crushed.

According to the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which launched the probe of the data, an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” has already been assembled. The inquiry will be led by Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the group said. The global warming-focused organization is seeking information and evidence from all sides of the debate. Among other elements, the investigation will review the “technical challenges” in accurately measuring surface temperature around the world. It will also “assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend.”


Well, the scientists are going to investigate themselves.

I feel better already.

Don't you fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 11:20 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20762-scientists-launch-investigation-into-climate-data-adjustments

Quote:
A team of top scientists and experts is launching a major inquiry into the integrity, or lack thereof, of the surface temperature data often cited by anthropogenic (man-made) global-warming theorists to justify their alarmism, the Global Warming Policy Foundation announced on April 26. Minor increases in the world’s surface temperature data, which is admittedly “adjusted” by governments for various reasons, has been key to demanding global policies restricting carbon emissions and economic freedom to supposedly fight climate change ever since the man-made “global cooling” theory imploded after its heyday in the 1970s. However, if the inquiry ends up confirming widely held suspicions that the warming data is inaccurate or even outright fraudulent, the entire climate-alarmism industry could be permanently crushed.

According to the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which launched the probe of the data, an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” has already been assembled. The inquiry will be led by Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, the group said. The global warming-focused organization is seeking information and evidence from all sides of the debate. Among other elements, the investigation will review the “technical challenges” in accurately measuring surface temperature around the world. It will also “assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend.”


Well, the scientists are going to investigate themselves.

I feel better already.

Don't you fence sitters.


As opposed to being investigated by someone like yourself who does not grasp the science or even basic logic? If the data is being changed, how is the satellite data being collected by a skeptic being changed without his knowledge? It has to be changed because it agrees with the trend of the data you claim is fraudulent.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 6:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 809
Let me first state that I find it completely despicable when kids are used to push a political agenda. Kids don’t have the sophistication necessary to understand politics.



Image


But, if these kids really believe the signs they are holding than they have been indoctrinated to the point of out and out child abuse.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:40 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:50 am
Posts: 9
Quote:
Let me first state that I find it completely despicable when kids are used to push a political agenda. Kids don’t have the sophistication necessary to understand politics.
Your a fine one to accuse others of lacking sophistication, you link anything against your pet bugbear even if it's written in crayon. BTW You never answered the question "What the hell is Does Upthrust Buoyancy even mean in that link?"

Regards

Spot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21398
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Let me first state that I find it completely despicable when kids are used to push a political agenda. Kids don’t have the sophistication necessary to understand politics.


True, but they do have the ability to understand the science and the truth, which are not requirements for politics.



Quote:
But, if these kids really believe the signs they are holding than they have been indoctrinated to the point of out and out child abuse.


From the one who has posted more lies and misrepresentations in the attempt to push a political agenda this is truly rich.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1347 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 ... 90  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group