1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

The Secret Plan To Teach Children That Climate Change is a Hoax

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Murky, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23,868
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Oh! Compelling argument!
     
  2. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    Why do you think that that comment is an argument? It's not. It does, however, say a lot about how alarmists approach the issue. We are the "scientific community". They are the "deniers".

    Somehow, despite their claimed devotion to science, everyone from the New York Slimes to the OP fell head over heels for an obvious hoax. Meanwhile those who actually think for themselves where calling this out even before the Heartland Institute denounced it as a fake.

    They fell for it because they truly believe that they are the scientific community and those who oppose their nonsense are against science. The arrogance is palpable. No skeptic could possibly have written that memo. Skeptics are invariably for more and better science, not teaching kids propaganda against it.
     
  3. ruff_hi

    ruff_hi Live 4ever! Or die trying

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2005
    Messages:
    8,830
    Location:
    an Aussie in Boston
    I find it amusing when people ask 'do you believe in global warming' or 'do you believe in the theory of evolution'? My issue with these questions is the word 'believe'. A scientific theory is NOT a believe system. It is an argument put forward to explain an observed situation. It lives or dies on how well it explains the observations or facts under consideration.

    As such - if a theory (after applying ockham's razor) describes the observed facts, then it should be the currently accepted explanation. If it doesn't, or the approach behind it is wrong (ie a loose connection), then it shouldn't be accepted.

    God, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy ... these are believe systems.
     
  4. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    Only Heartland is claiming the Strategy Paper is a fake. But everything in the Strategy Paper has been corroborated - which is what Gleick did. He tried to verify stuff before handing it over.

    The only hoax here was when Gleick masked his real identity and claimed to be an existing board member in order to have a honeypot email address attached to Heartland's board communication list. Pretty simple and certainly doesn't rise to the level of theft that Heartland advocated around the time of the East Anglia hack.
     
  5. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    Oh. They most definitely are belief systems. Both of them. The difference between them is that evolution is ALSO a scientific theory.
     
  6. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    Really? Try looking up Megan McArdle or Warren Meyer, both of whom called this out before Heartland denied it.

    Now you're just making stuff up. Where is the corroboration? Aside from Heartland agreeing that everything besides the moronic "Strategy Paper" was real.

    Actually both incidents show just how dishonest the climate hoaxers are. In the one case, Glieck (or someone around him), made up a bunch of lies and tried to foist it off as fact. In the other, they show themselves as a bunch of petty small-minded individuals who are not above misdirection to "hide the decline". More importantly, the so-called models were shown up as the joke that they are. They couldn't even keep track of their data. Pathetic.
     
  7. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    40,360
    Location:
    US of A

    So you want to fill children's heads with fairy tales and tell them that they are real? :crazyeye:
     
  8. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23,868
    Location:
    High above the ice
    I don't. I used sarcasm. You should have recognised it having just used it yourself.
    Still no argument in sight.

    I do agree with your last sentence. Which is why I pose that those who deride the theories regarding Global Warming without argument, without understanding of the theory, without skepticism towards the opposing non-scientific theories (they lack a very important element that makes it scientific. If you ask me politely I will tell you, since you clearly can't figure it out for yourself) are not skeptics at all. The behaviour displayed is far from skepticism in a scientific sense. There is a definition of skepticism away from the scientific realm that suits the AGW-'skeptic' though.

    1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

    because the AGW skeptic goes beyond doubts and questions and jumps right to disagrees because it's the cool thing to do, that's the only definition that fits. "He who disagrees without doubt or question generally accepted conclusions."

    Not assertions, since the AGW skeptic loves and thrives on making one assertion after the other. Which is beyond doubt and question as far as the 'skeptic' is concerned. Any doubt or questions with regard to their assertion is met with the arrogance you so despise.

    Another thing I agree with you is that they do indeed think for yourselves. They are not troubled by data or scientific theory which others have painstakingly gathered unless they comply with their, as you admitted, preconceived notions (Meanwhile those who actually think for themselves where calling this out even before the Heartland Institute denounced it as a fake. They clearly had your conclusion ready and all they needed was someone, anyone, no matter how shady, to say they were right). They are driven by what they personally want to believe. They want to believe their beloved free market is not subject to outside influence. It's pure and pristine and anything that dangers it must be a hoax. Otherwise their delusions of the libertarian utopia would come crashing down around them. That would mean blasphemy against the Holy Book of Mises and an affront to the prophet Rothbard.
    Spoiler :
    One rant deserves another don't you agree? :)
     
  9. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    It wasn't sarcasm. Sarcasm actually has a point to it. It's not some random insult.

    :lol: And it was indeed a good one. Although it's not especially difficult to flip it around. All of the AGW theorists, with the exception of Biorn Lomberg, invariably believe that the only solution to this problem they invented is yet more state interference in people's lives, yet more taxes and yet more control.

    Of course, there is nothing special about the AGW alarmists. This is how the modern democratic state works. Someone creates a boogie man and demands state action to fix. The fix always involves still more attacks on our freedoms, still more theft of other people's money and still more meddling in the lives of decent folk. Not infrequently people die. Whether it's the drug wars and the terrists beloved on the right or the evul corporations and the fantasies about the environment that the lefties dream up, the answer is always the same. Then when state fails to achieve the ends they desire (and it invariably does because the only thing that the state knows how to do is to steal, control and kill) the only solution that statists can come up with is to redouble their efforts - the true mark of a fanatic.

    As for Mises and Rothbard, I doubt that even a tiny fraction of people who oppose the global warming scam have heard of them. I know I didn't when I first realized what it was about 12 years ago. Thanks to the Internet, though, the good word is getting out. Statists hate that. They had such tight control over information thirty years ago. At that time the warmists might well have achieved their crazed agenda simply because there was no way around the state-controlled media.

    BTW, do you know what the so-called AGW theory is? I do. El Machinae does. But I have never once seen any reference to it in the popular press. Nor have I seen it described in the alarmist literature either. They, instead, use weasel words like "forcings" to describe it. At least 99% of the proponents of this "theory" don't know what it is. Do you?

    Hint: the central hypothesis of the "theory" is not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is generally accepted, by both the warmists and skeptics that a doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes an increase in the global temperature of about 1 degC. That is also the increase in the concentration which the warmists predict over the next century. So where do the numbers of 6 degrees and even 11 degrees come from?
     
  10. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    tl;dr

    use of word "statists" doesn't help either, hunnibunz.
     
  11. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Your guys do all bad stuff and my guys do all good stuff! :mad:
     
  12. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    Start doing good stuff?
     
  13. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    That's OK. It's mostly a rant. Just Showing Ziggy I can live up to his standards. :crazyeye: The last two paragraphs might be worth reading, though. I should have separated them out into a different post.

    Statists always hate it when you call them by their proper name. :p
     
  14. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    Sorry, sweetcakes ;)
     
  15. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    23,868
    Location:
    High above the ice
    Not something to be proud off. They're pretty low.
     
  16. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    Y'know, when you're not being "sarcastic", you can be pretty funny. I :lol:'d at that one.
     
  17. Murky

    Murky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,216
    Location:
    The Milky Way Galaxy
    Any real "Skeptic" would thoroughly read through all the alleged Heartland documents and try to make a solid case one way or the other, not just taking their word for it that the memo was fake.

    edit:

    Just ran across this:
     
  18. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    here's a place to start:
    http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20120223.html

    It's not direct corroboration, but it's an analysis of the writing style in the Strategy Memo compared to sample of Gleick, HI President Bast, and other HI public statements.

    Results:
    "According to the above six analyses, which may contain unknown errors, the most likely author of the climate strategy memo is Heartland Institute president Joe Bast."


    For corroboration, please examine this post:
    http://www.desmogblog.com/evaluation-shows-faked-heartland-climate-strategy-memo-authentic

    It's a pretty involved post, so I'm not going to summarize it. But if you really are interested in reading up on why people think the Strategy Memo is real, you definitely should read it. If you're willing to take Heartland at their word, then don't waste your time.
     
  19. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,813
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    I read them. Stupid fluff pieces written for the true believers. The "proof" is that memo has the style of the real documents? Of course, it does. That's because it is full of copy-and-paste.

    Read Megan McArgle. She is an AGW advocate but is honest enough to recognise a fake when she sees one. Unusual, and I give her a lot of credit for it. On top of that she actually seems to understand the skeptic position - at least psychologically. More credit. Read her. here, here, here and here.

    And just how dare you claim that "I believe Heartland"? It's insulting. I never heard of Heartland until Peter Glieck and the rest of the scam gang put their name into the public eye. And I certainly don't believe anyone until I have done some thinking for myself. It's funny. Earlier on this thread, Mr. Stardust actually criticised me for that. Typical.
     
  20. peter grimes

    peter grimes ... Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13,143
    Location:
    Queens, New York
    Slow down! Where did I claim that you believe them???

    Please don't be so easily insulted... this is the internet, after all :lol:

    I'll try to read your links tomorrow or Wednesday. Work is annoyingly busy, which only leaves the evenings.
     

Share This Page