AnonymBruker Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #181 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 So what? Ikke nok med blunderen Climategate.. en har også... GlaciergatePachaurigateHurricanegateWWFgate osv. Ingen av sidene du linker til refererer til noen vitenskapelige artikler, det er enten artikler til journalister eller "someone said", etc. Det forbauser meg at selv om det er såpass stor interesse for, og kritikk mot forskningen rundt global oppvarming, så er det ingen som leverer studier som motbeviser det. Det er altså på debattforaer, leserdebatter på nettaviser og bloggere som sitter med denne fantastiske kompetansen. Eller vent, det må jo være fordi de er uavhengige, ikke sant, og ikke medlemmer av den korrupte forskereliten som kun tenker på å heve lønna si..
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #182 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Forskere? (har tidligere linket til vitenskaplige artikler som IPCC har utelatt ettersom det går imot "budskapet") Når IPCC kom med sin über-detaljerte rapport om global oppvarming så var et sentralt punkt at verdens isbreer smeltet så fort at de i Himalaya ville forsvinne som dugg for solen innen 2035. En kan da lure på hvilke kilder jordens mest brillijante forskere egentlig bruker, særlig når det viste seg at det sentrale punktet for hele klodens stolhet og nobelprisvinnende team var en artikkel fra et populært-vitenskaplig magasin som kom ut for over åtte år siden. En artikkel som ble gjort gjennom å intervjue en n00b-forsker på telefon, som på et senere tidspunkt faktisk innrømmet at det var bare egentlig mer spekulasjoner. ...and the list goes on... som jeg har postet litt lenger opp i tråden om det siste skuddet i baugen på IPCC-piratskuta hvor tidligere IPCC-medlem Vahrenholt også hevder at når det kommer til selve «konklusjonen» så er det teamet av redaktører 30% grønne sensasjonister som bare forkludrer et så pass viktig spørsmål så til de grader at som sagt... en begynner nesten å tro at energi-industrien har en finger med i spillet ettersom det ellers burde være klin hakke umulig å komme med så hårreisende politisk farga konklusjoner bare skader denne særdeles viktige saken. Når solen svekkes så øker den kosmiske bakgrunnsstråling på jorden, dette f.eks. og annet dill driver en uglesett danske hos CERN å forsker på... hvorfor har ikke han ræva full av penger? «Zaphod was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).» For å si det slik... en kan fort begynne å tenke illuminati hvis en ser 1984 sin dobbeltenkning som noe faktisk.
Gjest Koala Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #183 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Forskere? (har tidligere linket til vitenskaplige artikler som IPCC har utelatt ettersom det går imot "budskapet") Når IPCC kom med sin über-detaljerte rapport om global oppvarming så var et sentralt punkt at verdens isbreer smeltet så fort at de i Himalaya ville forsvinne som dugg for solen innen 2035. En kan da lure på hvilke kilder jordens mest brillijante forskere egentlig bruker, særlig når det viste seg at det sentrale punktet for hele klodens stolhet og nobelprisvinnende team var en artikkel fra et populært-vitenskaplig magasin som kom ut for over åtte år siden. En artikkel som ble gjort gjennom å intervjue en n00b-forsker på telefon, som på et senere tidspunkt faktisk innrømmet at det var bare egentlig mer spekulasjoner. ...and the list goes on... som jeg har postet litt lenger opp i tråden om det siste skuddet i baugen på IPCC-piratskuta hvor tidligere IPCC-medlem Vahrenholt også hevder at når det kommer til selve «konklusjonen» så er det teamet av redaktører 30% grønne sensasjonister som bare forkludrer et så pass viktig spørsmål så til de grader at som sagt... en begynner nesten å tro at energi-industrien har en finger med i spillet ettersom det ellers burde være klin hakke umulig å komme med så hårreisende politisk farga konklusjoner bare skader denne særdeles viktige saken. Når solen svekkes så øker den kosmiske bakgrunnsstråling på jorden, dette f.eks. og annet dill driver en uglesett danske hos CERN å forsker på... hvorfor har ikke han ræva full av penger? «Zaphod was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).» For å si det slik... en kan fort begynne å tenke illuminati hvis en ser 1984 sin dobbeltenkning som noe faktisk. Diskusjonen rundt hvor fort breene i Himalaya smelter er ikke "et sentralt punkt" for klimaforskningen. Det er en virkning av den globale oppvarmingen, ikke en årsak. Merk at vi er sikre på at breene smelter, usikkerheten knytter seg til hvor fort. De sentrale punktene er at mengden CO2 i atmosfæren øker og det fører til høyere global temperatur. Begge deler er viten. CO2 innholdet lar seg enkelt måle og virkningene av CO2 lar seg greit regne ut. Det forskerne er opptatt av nå er å analysere ulike tilbakekoblingseffekter. Disse beskrives så godt som mulig men det er svært krevende å analysere dem siden det er mange faktorer som må tas hensyn til. Det faktum at modellene for tilbakekoblingseffektene har blitt endret og vil bli endret i fremtiden svekker ikke forskningen, snarere tvert om.
Gjest Ariel Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #184 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Jeg snakker ikke om hva "ærlige" forskere gjør, jeg snakker om hypen som denne 30% grønne redasjonen pitcher og i prosessen friserer bort mye forskning som går i mot det grønne budskapet. Kort fortalt... 1984: Nytale («Newspeak») var i denne sammenheng et språk som år for år ble mer ordfattig. Ord med nyanser og rom for tolkning ble fjernet, og ord som ble ansett for å være overflødige ble tatt bort. «Dårlig» ble «ubra». Forsterkninger som «bedre» og «best» ble til «plussbra» og «dobbeltplussbra». Nytale og politisk korrekthet er nært beslektet. Det er i bunn og grunn samme fenomen i ulike doseringer. Et grunnleggende konsept i nytale er dobbelttenking. Dobbelttenking er i følge «1984» evnen til å ha to gjensidig utelukkende tanker i hodet samtidig, og akseptere dem begge, - evnen til å bevisst fortelle løgner og ærlig og oppriktig tro på dem. Vi kjenner igjen dobbeltenkning i krigspropaganda. Når amerikanske krigere (styrker) kommer i skade for å bombe sivile mål, kaller de det «følgeskader» (collateral damage), heller enn drap på sivile, hvilket de fleste siviliserte mennesker vil være enig om det vitterlig er. Når norske fredsbevarende krigere sendes til Afghanistan, er det, i tråd med samme filosofi, fredsopprettende bomber de slipper over landskapet. Det herskende Partiets medlemmer blir opplært i mental akrobatikk som kalles «dobbeltenking». De har derfor ingen problemer med å forsvare Partiets hovedparoler: «Krig er fred», «Frihet er slaveri» og «Uvitenhet er styrke». + en dæsj Chomsky.. The real mass media are basically trying to divert people. Let them do something else, but don’t bother us (us being the people who run the show). Let them get interested in professional sports, for example. Let everybody be crazed about professional sports or sex scandals or the personalities and their problems or something like that. Anything, as long as it isn’t serious. Of course, the serious stuff is for the big guys. "We" take care of that. What are the elite media, the agenda-setting ones? The New York Times and CBS, for example. Well, first of all, they are major, very profitable, corporations. Furthermore, most of them are either linked to, or outright owned by, much bigger corporations, like General Electric, Westinghouse, and so on. They are way up at the top of the power structure of the private economy which is a very tyrannical structure. Corporations are basically tyrannies, hierarchic, controled from above. If you don’t like what they are doing you get out. The major media are just part of that system. What about their institutional setting? Well, that’s more or less the same. What they interact with and relate to is other major power centers—the government, other corporations, or the universities. Because the media are a doctrinal system they interact closely with the universities. Say you are a reporter writing a story on Southeast Asia or Africa, or something like that. You’re supposed to go over to the big university and find an expert who will tell you what to write, or else go to one of the foundations, like Brookings Institute or American Enterprise Institute and they will give you the words to say. These outside institutions are very similar to the media. The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it’s generally true of corporations. It’s true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It’s dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on. If you’ve read George Orwell’s Animal Farm which he wrote in the mid-1940s, it was a satire on the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state. It was a big hit. Everybody loved it. Turns out he wrote an introduction to Animal Farm which was suppressed. It only appeared 30 years later. Someone had found it in his papers. The introduction to Animal Farm was about "Literary Censorship in England" and what it says is that obviously this book is ridiculing the Soviet Union and its totalitarian structure. But he said England is not all that different. We don’t have the KGB on our neck, but the end result comes out pretty much the same. People who have independent ideas or who think the wrong kind of thoughts are cut out. He talks a little, only two sentences, about the institutional structure. He asks, why does this happen? Well, one, because the press is owned by wealthy people who only want certain things to reach the public. The other thing he says is that when you go through the elite education system, when you go through the proper schools in Oxford, you learn that there are certain things it’s not proper to say and there are certain thoughts that are not proper to have. That is the socialization role of elite institutions and if you don’t adapt to that, you’re usually out. Those two sentences more or less tell the story. When you critique the media and you say, look, here is what Anthony Lewis or somebody else is writing, they get very angry. They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system. Okay, you look at the structure of that whole system. What do you expect the news to be like? Well, it’s pretty obvious. Take the New York Times. It’s a corporation and sells a product. The product is audiences. They don’t make money when you buy the newspaper. They are happy to put it on the worldwide web for free. They actually lose money when you buy the newspaper. But the audience is the product. The product is privileged people, just like the people who are writing the newspapers, you know, top-level decision-making people in society. You have to sell a product to a market, and the market is, of course, advertisers (that is, other businesses). Whether it is television or newspapers, or whatever, they are selling audiences. Corporations sell audiences to other corporations. In the case of the elite media, it’s big businesses. Well, what do you expect to happen? What would you predict about the nature of the media product, given that set of circumstances? What would be the null hypothesis, the kind of conjecture that you’d make assuming nothing further. The obvious assumption is that the product of the media, what appears, what doesn’t appear, the way it is slanted, will reflect the interest of the buyers and sellers, the institutions, and the power systems that are around them. If that wouldn’t happen, it would be kind of a miracle. Okay, then comes the hard work. You ask, does it work the way you predict? Well, you can judge for yourselves. There’s lots of material on this obvious hypothesis, which has been subjected to the hardest tests anybody can think of, and still stands up remarkably well. You virtually never find anything in the social sciences that so strongly supports any conclusion, which is not a big surprise, because it would be miraculous if it didn’t hold up given the way the forces are operating. The next thing you discover is that this whole topic is completely taboo. If you go to the Kennedy School of Government or Stanford, or somewhere, and you study journalism and communications or academic political science, and so on, these questions are not likely to appear. That is, the hypothesis that anyone would come across without even knowing anything that is not allowed to be expressed, and the evidence bearing on it cannot be discussed. Well, you predict that too. If you look at the institutional structure, you would say, yeah, sure, that’s got to happen because why should these guys want to be exposed? Why should they allow critical analysis of what they are up to take place? The answer is, there is no reason why they should allow that and, in fact, they don’t. Again, it is not purposeful censorship. It is just that you don’t make it to those positions. That includes the left (what is called the left), as well as the right. Unless you have been adequately socialized and trained so that there are some thoughts you just don’t have, because if you did have them, you wouldn’t be there. So you have a second order of prediction which is that the first order of prediction is not allowed into the discussion. The last thing to look at is the doctrinal framework in which this proceeds. Do people at high levels in the information system, including the media and advertising and academic political science and so on, do these people have a picture of what ought to happen when they are writing for each other (not when they are making graduation speeches)? When you make a commencement speech, it is pretty words and stuff. But when they are writing for one another, what do people say about it? There are basically three currents to look at. One is the public relations industry, you know, the main business propaganda industry. So what are the leaders of the PR industry saying? Second place to look is at what are called public intellectuals, big thinkers, people who write the "op eds" and that sort of thing. What do they say? The people who write impressive books about the nature of democracy and that sort of business. The third thing you look at is the academic stream, particularly that part of political science which is concerned with communications and information and that stuff which has been a branch of political science for the last 70 or 80 years. So, look at those three things and see what they say, and look at the leading figures who have written about this. They all say (I’m partly quoting), the general population is "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders." We have to keep them out of the public arena because they are too stupid and if they get involved they will just make trouble. Their job is to be "spectators," not "participants." They are allowed to vote every once in a while, pick out one of us smart guys. But then they are supposed to go home and do something else like watch football or whatever it may be. But the "ignorant and meddlesome outsiders" have to be observers not participants. The participants are what are called the "responsible men" and, of course, the writer is always one of them. You never ask the question, why am I a "responsible man" and somebody else is in jail? The answer is pretty obvious. It’s because you are obedient and subordinate to power and that other person may be independent, and so on. But you don’t ask, of course. So there are the smart guys who are supposed to run the show and the rest of them are supposed to be out, and we should not succumb to (I’m quoting from an academic article) "democratic dogmatisms about men being the best judges of their own interest." They are not. They are terrible judges of their own interests so we have do it for them for their own benefit. Actually, it is very similar to Leninism. We do things for you and we are doing it in the interest of everyone, and so on. I suspect that’s part of the reason why it’s been so easy historically for people to shift up and back from being, sort of enthusiastic Stalinists to being big supporters of U.S. power. People switch very quickly from one position to the other, and my suspicion is that it’s because basically it is the same position. You’re not making much of a switch. You’re just making a different estimate of where power lies. One point you think it’s here, another point you think it’s there. You take the same position. @PAR SUB = How did all this evolve? It has an interesting history. A lot of it comes out of the first World War, which is a big turning point. It changed the position of the United States in the world considerably. In the 18th century the U.S. was already the richest place in the world. The quality of life, health, and longevity was not achieved by the upper classes in Britain until the early 20th century, let alone anybody else in the world. The U.S. was extraordinarily wealthy, with huge advantages, and, by the end of the 19th century, it had by far the biggest economy in the world. But it was not a big player on the world scene. U.S. power extended to the Caribbean Islands, parts of the Pacific, but not much farther. During the first World War, the relations changed. And they changed more dramatically during the second World War. After the second World War the U.S. more or less took over the world. But after first World War there was already a change and the U.S. shifted from being a debtor to a creditor nation. It wasn’t huge, like Britain, but it became a substantial actor in the world for the first time. That was one change, but there were other changes. The first World War was the first time there was highly organized state propaganda. The British had a Ministry of Information, and they really needed it because they had to get the U.S. into the war or else they were in bad trouble. The Ministry of Information was mainly geared to sending propaganda, including huge fabrications about "Hun" atrocities, and so on. They were targeting American intellectuals on the reasonable assumption that these are the people who are most gullible and most likely to believe propaganda. They are also the ones that disseminate it through their own system. So it was mostly geared to American intellectuals and it worked very well. The British Ministry of Information documents (a lot have been released) show their goal was, as they put it, to control the thought of the entire world, a minor goal, but mainly the U.S. They didn’t care much what people thought in India. This Ministry of Information was extremely successful in deluding hot shot American intellectuals into accepting British propaganda fabrications. They were very proud of that. Properly so, it saved their lives. They would have lost the first World War otherwise. In the U.S., there was a counterpart. Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1916 on an anti-war platform. The U.S. was a very pacifist country. It has always been. People don’t want to go fight foreign wars. The country was very much opposed to the first World War and Wilson was, in fact, elected on an anti-war position. "Peace without victory" was the slogan. But he was intending to go to war. So the question was, how do you get the pacifist population to become raving anti-German lunatics so they want to go kill all the Germans? That requires propaganda. So they set up the first and really only major state propaganda agency in U.S. history. The Committee on Public Information it was called (nice Orwellian title), called also the Creel Commission. The guy who ran it was named Creel. The task of this commission was to propagandize the population into a jingoist hysteria. It worked incredibly well. Within a few months there was a raving war hysteria and the U.S. was able to go to war. A lot of people were impressed by these achievements. One person impressed, and this had some implications for the future, was Hitler. If you read Mein Kampf, he concludes, with some justification, that Germany lost the first World War because it lost the propaganda battle. They could not begin to compete with British and American propaganda which absolutely overwhelmed them. He pledges that next time around they’ll have their own propaganda system, which they did during the second World War. More important for us, the American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on. So what do you do? It’s going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller’s image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques. This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala. His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn’t smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual. Another member of the Creel Commission was Walter Lippmann, the most respected figure in American journalism for about half a century (I mean serious American journalism, serious think pieces). He also wrote what are called progressive essays on democracy, regarded as progressive back in the 1920s. He was, again, applying the lessons of the work on propaganda very explicitly. He says there is a new art in democracy called manufacture of consent. That is his phrase. Edward Herman and I borrowed it for our book, but it comes from Lippmann. So, he says, there is this new art in the method of democracy, "manufacture of consent." By manufacturing consent, you can overcome the fact that formally a lot of people have the right to vote. We can make it irrelevant because we can manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them, even if they have a formal way to participate. So we’ll have a real democracy. It will work properly. That’s applying the lessons of the propaganda agency. Academic social science and political science comes out of the same thing. The founder of what’s called communications and academic political science is Harold Glasswell. His main achievement was a book, a study of propaganda. He says, very frankly, the things I was quoting before—those things about not succumbing to democratic dogmatism, that comes from academic political science (Lasswell and others). Again, drawing the lessons from the war time experience, political parties drew the same lessons, especially the conservative party in England. Their early documents, just being released, show they also recognized the achievements of the British Ministry of Information. They recognized that the country was getting more democratized and it wouldn’t be a private men’s club. So the conclusion was, as they put it, politics has to become political warfare, applying the mechanisms of propaganda that worked so brilliantly during the first World War towards controlling people’s thoughts. That’s the doctrinal side and it coincides with the institutional structure. It strengthens the predictions about the way the thing should work. And the predictions are well confirmed. But these conclusions, also, are not allowed to be discussed. This is all now part of mainstream literature but it is only for people on the inside. When you go to college, you don’t read the classics about how to control peoples minds. Just like you don’t read what James Madison said during the constitutional convention about how the main goal of the new system has to be "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," and has to be designed so that it achieves that end. This is the founding of the constitutional system, so nobody studies it. You can’t even find it in the academic scholarship unless you really look hard. .. så kanskje en "ser" hva IPCC bedriver. Dette er som sagt skummelt, særdeles esoterisk og ikke minst så off topic at det blir slettet ettersom global oppvarming slik IPeCaC spyr ut er???????????????????????????????
AnonymBruker Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #185 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Jeg snakker ikke om hva "ærlige" forskere gjør, jeg snakker om hypen som denne 30% grønne redasjonen pitcher og i prosessen friserer bort mye forskning som går i mot det grønne budskapet. Kort fortalt... 1984: + en dæsj Chomsky.. .. så kanskje en "ser" hva IPCC bedriver. Dette er som sagt skummelt, særdeles esoterisk og ikke minst så off topic at det blir slettet ettersom global oppvarming slik IPeCaC spyr ut er??????????????????????????????? tl:dr
AnonymBruker Skrevet 20. mars 2012 #186 Skrevet 20. mars 2012 Jeg skjønner ikke helt hensikten med å gjengi endeløse sitater fra blogger som ingen leser.
Gjest Teskjekjerringa Skrevet 21. mars 2012 #187 Skrevet 21. mars 2012 ..blåbær på pannekaka at 22:20 Chomsky says that the US Dept. of Energy "DOE" came out with report in Nov. 2011 that emissions of 2010 were the largest ever and even worse than the worse case scenario that the IPCC estimated (The International Commision of Scientists) Then he goes onto say that the International Energy Association came out with a report a few days later stating that in five years it may be irreversable. Thus meaning that the Global Emissions will reach the 2 degree danger point of no return. Serious enough for you? He starts out talking about why the middle east hates us and why they should because we support repressive regimes to keep control of oil reserves. Chomsky should be on the mainstream news. Can you answer me why if not because he tells the truth which exposes and threatens business as usual?
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #188 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 ..at menneskelig landforandring er en første-ordens klimaeffekt som da også CO2 er Menneskelig landforandring?
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #189 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Det sammendraget er for min del uriktig, IPCC underdriver også klimaeffekten av biologiske aerosol partikler -> lenke. Hvor har du det fra at de gjør det? Og hvorfor skriver du dette som svar på at noen påpeker at IPCC ikke driver med forskning?
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #190 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Om klimaendringer er menneskeskapt bør vi ikke la tiden vise. Det har tiden vist alt. Man har visst om drivhuseffekten siden slutten av 1800-tallet.
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #191 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 IPCC er korrupt.. Nei, det er Lafamboise som er korrupt. Kvinnfolket vet jo ikke engang hva forskning er, eller hvordan det foregår. Hvorfor er alle klimanektere så notorisk dumme?
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #192 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 (endret) IPCC science: are you willing to take the risk? Løgnaktig propaganda. Hvorfor limer du inn dette åpenbart løgnaktige tullet? Endret 22. mars 2012 av hulaboer
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #193 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 UN hired 'inexperienced graduate students to write controversial Climate Change reports' Dette er feil. Det avslører bare at klimanektere ikke aner hvordan forskning foregår.
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #194 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Rajendra Pachauri sa følgende: "IPCC studies only peer-review science" dog så er nesten en tredjedel av materialet ikke det og spør en om kilder så får en intet svar. I boken hevdes det at "28% of sources were from magazine articles, press releases, and unpublished papers" IPCC sjekker ikke sine kilder og bruker bare materiale som støtter Deres uriktige modell som f.eks. hva Greenpeace sier, det er da ikke vitenskaplig, men mer politisk. Dog noen får masse penger for dette... Hvorfor sprer du dette makkverket? Du tror blindt på klimanektertullinger. Påstandene dine er tullete, og beviser bare at du ikke eier sans for kildekritikk. I boken hevdes det mye rart. Felles for alt boken hevder er at det er løgn og bedrag.
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #195 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 (endret) Ja, da er vi enig i at IPCC = politikk og ikke vitenskap. Kan du slutte å spamme forumet med løgnene dine? UN panel is in bed with green lobbies Løgn. 30% Of The IPCC Are Greenpeace & WWF Activists Mer løgn. Fakta om løgneren Vahrenholt: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html Endret 22. mars 2012 av hulaboer
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #196 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Det er en tidligere IPCC-medlem som sier dette, nærmere bestemt Fritz Vahrenholt: Breaking Global Warming Taboos 'I Feel Duped on Climate Change' Igjen, her er artikkelen om løgneren Vahrenholt: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #197 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 har tidligere linket til vitenskaplige artikler som IPCC har utelatt ettersom det går imot "budskapet" Hvilke da? Eksempel, takk. Når IPCC kom med sin über-detaljerte rapport om global oppvarming så var et sentralt punkt at verdens isbreer smeltet så fort at de i Himalaya ville forsvinne som dugg for solen innen 2035. Hvorfor spyr du ut alle disse tullete påstandene? Dett var ikke noe "sentralt punkt" i det hele tatt. Kan du slutte å spamme tråden med søppel, og heller følge opp en av de tullete påstandene du allerede har fremsatt?
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #198 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Det hulaboer har jeg allerede besvart og kommet med henvisninger (dog det tar du ikke tak i), rapportene til IPCC er nærmest som i The Matrix.. den blå eller den røde pillen. Altså på den ene siden konklusjonene som er så grønne og alarmerende til politikerene og på den andre siden mer nøkterne vitenskaplige rapporter. Sist jeg sjekket så hadde Canada trukket seg fra Kyoto-avtalen og USA nekte fortsatt å ratifisere den Hvorfor det mon tro
Gjest Gjest Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #199 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Igjen, her er artikkelen om løgneren Vahrenholt: http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html Den er grei du.. post #183
hulaboer Skrevet 22. mars 2012 #200 Skrevet 22. mars 2012 Det hulaboer har jeg allerede besvart og kommet med henvisninger Hvor? rapportene til IPCC er nærmest som i The Matrix Du vet åpenbart ingen verens ting om IPCCs rapporter. Du tror jo til og med at IPCC driver med forskning. Sist jeg sjekket så hadde Canada trukket seg fra Kyoto-avtalen og USA nekte fortsatt å ratifisere den Hva så? Hvilken relevans har det for noe som helst? Den er grei du.. post #183 ...som er en ubrukelig blogg der Vahrenhold rett og slett ignorerer kritikken, og lyver til leseren. Latterlig.
Anbefalte innlegg