Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[Ericpwp]

So, what makes an illegit FOIA request? And if it is worth all hype why is it unpublished?

Oh david, where art thou?

 

[david890]

So, what makes an illegit FOIA request? And if it is worth all hype why is it unpublished?

See the above post: "failure to state cause" and "lack of authority". Both completely legitimate reasons to reject a FOIA request.

Why is raw data unpublished? Researchers spend a great deal of time and money to collect that information. If someone wants to challenge the findings, let them collect their own data. Please keep in mind that researchers go into detail about the methodology they use when interpreting the data, and those methods *can* be challenged without access to the original data set.

There are these things called "simulations", where folks plug imaginary data into someone's methodology to see what comes out. If I plugged two sets of opposing data into Mann's models (also described in the published works), yet I got *very* similar results, it wouldn't be hard to call BS on Mann's models or methods.

 

[david890]

Im not wagering anything.

Of course you are. You're "wagering" that your actions have little or no impact on the environment, that whatever the climate scientists say is BS and that your decisions will have little or no impact on your family. You can't call your decisions "sound" because you have not see all the available evidence, nor or you qualified to make judgments about what constitutes the "best" information. You are not a climate scientist.

You can certainly look at the images from an MRI, but you cannot make "sound" decisions based on what you see nor declare the images to be the "best" images, as you are not a radiologist.

It as a "wager" only in the broadest of terms; actions have consequences, and you're making value judgments on the possible outcomes of those actions. We can look at international trade agreements from the perspective of "Game" theory, but the issues are not games.

 

[Ericpwp]

A doctor is not denied the patient's medical record when they are peer reviewing a case. Sounds fishy.

 

[printcraft]

A doctor is not denied the patient's medical record when they are peer reviewing a case. Sounds fishy.

But they are doctors. Trust them.

 

[Woobie]

Of course you are. You're "wagering" that your actions have little or no impact on the environment, that whatever the climate scientists say is BS and that your decisions will have little or no impact on your family. You can't call your decisions "sound" because you have not see all the available evidence, nor or you qualified to make judgments about what constitutes the "best" information. You are not a climate scientist.

You can certainly look at the images from an MRI, but you cannot make "sound" decisions based on what you see nor declare the images to be the "best" images, as you are not a radiologist.

It as a "wager" only in the broadest of terms; actions have consequences, and you're making value judgments on the possible outcomes of those actions. We can look at international trade agreements from the perspective of "Game" theory, but the issues are not games.

Ah, so climate scientists are the only people qualified to make decisions about keeping my vehicle in good working conditions. Good to know.

Until someone with a more convincing case than you bring, and with purer motives, comes along, I will reject that they know better, or are at least trying to do what is really best, about anything. You can jump up and down and cry that I'm killing your family (which I am not), but the best you can give me is to kill my family to save yours. Sorry, you'll have to do better.

It's funny, if we were talking about exits, you would be wanting to hold the theatre liable for not maintaining an up to date and properly working exit. But if weMde talking about vehicles, you want them broken down on the roadside with the passenger's stranded. You need to evaluate your inconsistencies.

 

[BogWalker]

I don't know Woobie. Most exit signs use electricity. Maybe it's best we go without them.

 

[Thor]

Unless the sun is shining or the wind is blowing Bog. Now we can stand by and wait for the wind to blow some more tyranny our way.

 

[rhino]

From the horse's mouth.

Dr. Mann?s FOIA Litigation and CSLDF Involvement - Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

It's irrational for anyone engaged in scientific inquiry to hide their data and analysis once they are ready to announce conclusions (with exceptions such as when commercial interests and patents are involved). All of that research was under the auspices of a public institution and should be released under FOIA.

I've had to fulfill FOIA requests when I worked for the Federal Gov't. State and local governments are bound by the same law. The judges protecting Mann either made bad legal decisions (in which case they are stupid), or their decisions were politically motivated.

If Mann's data and analysis were legitimate, he has nothing to lose and much to gain by releasing all of that. The reality speaks very loudly.

 

[Woobie]

I don't know Woobie. Most exit signs use electricity. Maybe it's best we go without them.

Well, based on this thread you would think that. But he wants to hold the theatre liable for the Holmes killing spree. Says they should have installed reed switches, cameras and alarms at the exits. All of these use small amounts of energy, but at this point it's hard to say what the lower threshold is.

 

[david890]

It's irrational for anyone engaged in scientific inquiry to hide their data and analysis once they are ready to announce conclusions (with exceptions such as when commercial interests and patents are involved).

You mean like all the data and analysis done by Big Oil from the 1970s onward that showed fossil fuels contribute to climate change? Yeah, no reason for the public to have that info way back then...

BTW, many have accused climate scientists of being "bought and paid for", yet you now argue the research by Big Oil should remain a secret as it involves a "commercial interest"?

"LIBRUL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = bad and "BIG OIL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = good???

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USA

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

 

[david890]

Ah, so climate scientists are the only people qualified to make decisions about keeping my vehicle in good working conditions. Good to know.

Please indicate the post where I said that. Until then, DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR ME.

you want them broken down on the roadside with the passenger's stranded.

Again, unless you can point to a post where I said I "...wanted (them) broken down on the roadside...", DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR ME.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You mean like all the data and analysis done by Big Oil from the 1970s onward that showed fossil fuels contribute to climate change? Yeah, no reason for the public to have that info way back then...

BTW, many have accused climate scientists of being "bought and paid for", yet you now argue the research by Big Oil should remain a secret as it involves a "commercial interest"?

"LIBRUL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = bad and "BIG OIL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = good???

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USA

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

OK, so we have Koch versus Soros buying results, and in the mean time have a raft of people who believe that our economy should be destroyed while that of the worst 'offenders' in the world continues unabated and the evidence that human activity causes climate change yet to be proven. Please note that if these same people were to see the same climate change found in the 1300s, they would be ****ing their pants, and also recall that modern industry did not exist at that time.

 

[Woobie]

Please indicate the post where I said that. Until then, DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR ME.



Again, unless you can point to a post where I said I "...wanted (them) broken down on the roadside...", DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR ME.

Whoa, You don't have to yell, bro.

I know you don't think you are saying that, but it is the direct result of what you are advocating. And this is what I am trying to get you to do: consider the second and third order effects of these policies environmentalists hatch in their wet dreams. If it came at no cost, people would have accepted them long ago. But they see consequences academics and bean counters don't. And you aren't making a strong case that things will happen, and in the magnitude, the way you say they will.

 

[churchmouse]

OK, so we have Koch versus Soros buying results, and in the mean time have a raft of people who believe that our economy should be destroyed while that of the worst 'offenders' in the world continues unabated and the evidence that human activity causes climate change yet to be proven. Please note that if these same people were to see the same climate change found in the 1300s, they would be ****ing their pants, and also recall that modern industry did not exist at that time.

I edited this. Please just type out the word and let the filter do its job.
Anyone with a modicum of sense will make the connection.

 

[Woobie]

You mean like all the data and analysis done by Big Oil from the 1970s onward that showed fossil fuels contribute to climate change? Yeah, no reason for the public to have that info way back then...

BTW, many have accused climate scientists of being "bought and paid for", yet you now argue the research by Big Oil should remain a secret as it involves a "commercial interest"?

"LIBRUL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = bad and "BIG OIL SCIENTISTS PAID!" = good???

"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American

Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine - Greenpeace USA

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Its easy to put a scientist on your payroll, or even buy one. Heck, I think I saw one in the INGO classifieds a while back. What do you want me to say? People get greedy and lie? Of course they do, that's why I don't trust them. There are no saints on either side of this. They are all taking the money and reading the script. That's why it's so funny when people buy it.

I don't think you're ready for this part, but I'll let you make that decision: The government wants more power, and businesses (including the oil and green energy industries) want more money. They are both getting what they want out of this argument. Big oil companies encourage more regulation that they can afford and manipulate, thus squashing upstart or less adaptive competition. Government gains more power. Green industry receives money that .gov is happy to give away to buy more power. And who is paying for all this? Who has it taken out of their paycheck? Who has the additional fees on their utility bills? Who is paying at the pump? Who has to buy the crappy new light bulbs because GE wanted to lay off its US workforce? You are. And you are begging for more. They have you convinced that a perfectly safe, naturally occurring, and essential compound is going to destroy the planet. And they are laughing at you.

 

[printcraft]

Again, unless you can point to a post where I said I "...wanted (them) broken down on the roadside...", DO NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR ME.

If you said it or not does not change the end result of them being stranded on the roadside as a direct result of your preferred policies.

These things don't occur in a vacuum. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[eldirector]

Working under the assumption that auto manufacturers are no longer offering a spare tire as a weight-saving measure, and therefore increasing efficiency/mileage, removing the spare tire from one's own car would be an easy way to "walk the walk".

I wonder if any climate change activists have removed the spare tire from their own car(s)?

 

[Woobie]

Working under the assumption that auto manufacturers are no longer offering a spare tire as a weight-saving measure, and therefore increasing efficiency/mileage, removing the spare tire from one's own car would be an easy way to "walk the walk".

I wonder if any climate change activists have removed the spare tire from their own car(s)?

If they were serious about saving weight, and actually thought about it, they would take out the back seat, dash, a/c compressor and cores. If they really cared about the planet, they would get rid of the abs system, brake booster and power steering. And they would use a smaller battery in the summer time.

The spare tire is just a cause celeb greenies can latch on to. It sounds good, and you can do your part for the planet by clicking "like", but not actually having to dismantle your vehicle.

 

[rvb]

If they were serious about saving weight, and actually thought about it, they would take out the back seat, dash, a/c compressor and cores. If they really cared about the planet, they would get rid of the abs system, brake booster and power steering. And they would use a smaller battery in the summer time.

The spare tire is just a cause celeb greenies can latch on to. It sounds good, and you can do your part for the planet by clicking "like", but not actually having to dismantle your vehicle.

exactly. sacrifice the safety equipment (spare tire), but make sure we have wifi and routers and LCD displays and seat warmers and multi-zone climate control and backup cameras and leather and telescoping steering wheels and automatic push-button folding seats, sound insulation, etc ... all of those require wiring harnesses or power or motors or add significant weight (or all the above), etc. but those are "important," and can't be sacrificed. but greenies gotta be green, so ditch the spare! Hooray I saved a planet!

-rvb