40 replies to this topic

[canuck]

Caniswalensis, on 04 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Charles Clough, M.S., Meteorology is apparently an expert in pschology. LOL

So what is your point?

This article is supplemental to the post I made previously in which I posted a critique of the Nazi inspired tactics being used in the propaganda war against those who are critical of “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

It demonstrates the fact that the scam has long since moved away from any pretence of it being about science; it is now little more than a tribal blood sport in which one tribe is defending its territory from another.

Re-read that post; then read the Clough article.

The significance of this to Spookology is pretty obvious: take the whole “climate” issue, and replace the word “climate” with “Spookology”.

[Caniswalensis]

canuck, on 07 June 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

Caniswalensis, on 04 June 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Charles Clough, M.S., Meteorology is apparently an expert in pschology. LOL

So what is your point?

This article is supplemental to the post I made previously in which I posted a critique of the Nazi inspired tactics being used in the propaganda war against those who are critical of “The Great Global Warming Scam”.

It demonstrates the fact that the scam has long since moved away from any pretence of it being about science; it is now little more than a tribal blood sport in which one tribe is defending its territory from another.

Re-read that post; then read the Clough article.

The significance of this to Spookology is pretty obvious: take the whole “climate” issue, and replace the word “climate” with “Spookology”.

The point should be obvious. Charles Clough is making a lot of subjective, speculative statements about human pschology that he has no qualifications to make.

The suggestion to replace "climate" with "spookology" as a means of providing insite into the situation is useless. To replace a well-defined, real word with an ill-defined, made-up one and pretend that it somehow sheds light on either issue is valid only in a mind that is already convinced.

It would be a lot easier to take your opinions seriously on either the subject of the paranormal or climate change if you were not so obviously desperatly needing climate change to be false so that it bolsters your claim that the paranormal is unfairly dismissed by science. The truth is that even if climate change is some sort of scam, that says nothing at all about Science's treatment of the paranormal. Nothing at all.

...but lets say for the sake of discussion that your unsupported conspiracy theory of science versus the paranormal is real. It is easy enough to see how unscrupulous scientists could profit from a vast, all out campaign to dupe the world into beleiving in climate change. There is potentially a lot of cash & wages to be made with such a scheme, unlikely as it is. So where is the percentage in keeping the paranormal a secret? I don't see it. Please explain. This is your chance.

...and please stop comparing people to nazis. Please stop. It is tiresome and childish. Recently in another thread you missed the irony of you yourself critisizing people for for demonizing their opponents in the same breath that you were comparing your own to nazis. By your own post you should not be doing this. So please stop. it makes it really hard to take you serious when you indulge in such retoric.

[canuck]

I see that your response serves to reinforce the underlying point of the whole thread: that people believe what they want to believe, and will maintain their beliefs regardless of what evidence is presented. Belief trumps science every time.
As a case in point, despite explicit reference having been made to the error, you still persist in the incorrect usage of the term “climate change”; and I am still waiting for the answers to the questions I posed earlier.
Similarly, you seem unable to make the conceptual leap from the particulars of the climate scam to the generality of the dogmatic resistance to issues paranormal.
You also fail to appreciate that an overt conspiracy is not necessary where long standing indoctrination and dogmatism is entrenched. Under these circumstances, entrenched beliefs become self re-inforcing and few people will challenge doctrine.
You take exception to my critique of the methods used by the climate fraudsters. However, you fail to explain whether your objection is to the reference to the historical origins of the tactics, to my critique of their usage, or the fact that I have pointed out that they are being used by the fraudsters.

[Caniswalensis]

canuck, on 12 June 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I see that your response serves to reinforce the underlying point of the whole thread: that people believe what they want to believe, and will maintain their beliefs regardless of what evidence is presented. Belief trumps science every time.
As a case in point, despite explicit reference having been made to the error, you still persist in the incorrect usage of the term “climate change”; and I am still waiting for the answers to the questions I posed earlier.
Similarly, you seem unable to make the conceptual leap from the particulars of the climate scam to the generality of the dogmatic resistance to issues paranormal.
You also fail to appreciate that an overt conspiracy is not necessary where long standing indoctrination and dogmatism is entrenched. Under these circumstances, entrenched beliefs become self re-inforcing and few people will challenge doctrine.
You take exception to my critique of the methods used by the climate fraudsters. However, you fail to explain whether your objection is to the reference to the historical origins of the tactics, to my critique of their usage, or the fact that I have pointed out that they are being used by the fraudsters.

As expected, you declined the invitation to actually explain your point of view and instead continue to wave and point wildly at everyone else. It's everyone else's lack of knowledge and understanding. I am done here. You have turned another thread from discussion into mindless finger pointing that has a petty side issue as its basis.

BTW, My objection was not about any of the three choices you listed. It was about you coming in and godwining the thread ad nauseum with endless accusations of nazi style tactics being used against poor little "spookology." LOL

Edited by Caniswalensis, 12 June 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[canuck]

Caniswalensis, on 12 June 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

canuck, on 12 June 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

I see that your response serves to reinforce the underlying point of the whole thread: that people believe what they want to believe, and will maintain their beliefs regardless of what evidence is presented. Belief trumps science every time.
As a case in point, despite explicit reference having been made to the error, you still persist in the incorrect usage of the term “climate change”; and I am still waiting for the answers to the questions I posed earlier.
Similarly, you seem unable to make the conceptual leap from the particulars of the climate scam to the generality of the dogmatic resistance to issues paranormal.
You also fail to appreciate that an overt conspiracy is not necessary where long standing indoctrination and dogmatism is entrenched. Under these circumstances, entrenched beliefs become self re-inforcing and few people will challenge doctrine.
You take exception to my critique of the methods used by the climate fraudsters. However, you fail to explain whether your objection is to the reference to the historical origins of the tactics, to my critique of their usage, or the fact that I have pointed out that they are being used by the fraudsters.

As expected, you declined the invitation to actually explain your point of view and instead continue to wave and point wildly at everyone else. It's everyone else's lack of knowledge and understanding. I am done here. You have turned another thread from discussion into mindless finger pointing that has a petty side issue as its basis.

BTW, My objection was not about any of the three choices you listed. It was about you coming in and godwining the thread ad nauseum with endless accusations of nazi style tactics being used against poor little "spookology." LOL

I didn’t respond directly to your post since we have already covered that ground at some length in previous posts. I suggest that you go back and read those posts; then connect the dots.

Regarding the Nazi tactics used in the defence of “The Great Global Warming Scam”: are you denying that they are being used? Specifically, which aspects of the critique are you denying?

With regard to the arguments used by the cheerleaders for science, I suggest you read the following links regarding truth and integrity in science:

The first deals with an academic fired from The University of Oregon for expressing criticism of “The Great Global Warming Scam”. Not only was he fired, but his children were threatened with the termination of their PhD programs if their father didn’t toe the line. Where have we seen these tactics before?

http://wattsupwithth...ate-university/

The second link deals with another academic being fired for blowing the whistle on fraudulent research and faked credentials within a panel of scientific “experts”.

http://wattsupwithth...dal/#more-65743

Now imagine if any mainstream academic were to start investigating Spookology. Imagine how long he would last before he was fired.

Herr Goebbels would be proud to see that his legacy lives on.

[canuck]

For those that are interested, this from the taxpayer funded gravy train gabfest in Rio:

Consistent with the tactics of confusing the issue, as noted in previous posts, the term “climate change” has now been superseded; the correct term is “sustainablitiy” or “sustained development”.

Quote:

Belo Horizonte, Brazil. To advance public action on global warming, participants attending the ICLEI World Congress admitted today that they are deliberately employing new terminology to misdirect opponents and gain acceptance of their efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases. By utilizing terms like “sustainability” and “sustainable development,” the group wants to mask its objectives and disarm would-be critics who might otherwise oppose their agenda, ICLEI attendees confided with CFACT representatives at the conference.

Huxley Lawler, Executive Coordinator of Environment and Climate Change of the Gold Coast City Council in Australia (an ICLEI member), told CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker bluntly that “we don’t use the term climate change anymore. It’s sustainable development.” Rucker and CFACT staffer Abdul Kamara confirmed this in conversations with other delegates, including Paul Chambers, a Sustainability Manager for the Auckland Council in New Zealand. Chambers said it is important to use inexact environment protection terminology when dealing with conservative governments, like the one he says currently heads his nation.

Read more about it here: http://www.cfact.tv/...climate-agenda/

[ohreally?]

It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming.
That’s the conclusion of a major new analysis of the scientific evidence in Nature Climate Change, “A decade of weather extremes” (subs. req’d). The research is by Dim Coumou and Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The study includes this table of extreme events — “The selection criterion for this (incomplete) list was that the event was documented to be record-breaking (that is, unprecedented) in a long measurement series”: ... Nature: Strong Evidence Manmade ‘Unprecedented Heat And Rainfall Extremes Are Here … Causing Intense Human Suffering’





NOAA has released its “State of the Climate Global Analysis” for May 2012. Here are the highlights:

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
  
• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.

This warmth is particularly impressive because, as NASA noted earlier in the year, “The cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has...
NOAA: Second Hottest May On Record Globally, Hottest For Northern Hemisphere

[canuck]

ohreally?, on 23 June 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming.
That’s the conclusion of a major new analysis of the scientific evidence in Nature Climate Change, “A decade of weather extremes” (subs. req’d). The research is by Dim Coumou and Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The study includes this table of extreme events — “The selection criterion for this (incomplete) list was that the event was documented to be record-breaking (that is, unprecedented) in a long measurement series”: ... Nature: Strong Evidence Manmade ‘Unprecedented Heat And Rainfall Extremes Are Here … Causing Intense Human Suffering’





NOAA has released its “State of the Climate Global Analysis” for May 2012. Here are the highlights:

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
  
• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.

This warmth is particularly impressive because, as NASA noted earlier in the year, “The cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has...
NOAA: Second Hottest May On Record Globally, Hottest For Northern Hemisphere

ohreally?, on 23 June 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming.
That’s the conclusion of a major new analysis of the scientific evidence in Nature Climate Change, “A decade of weather extremes” (subs. req’d). The research is by Dim Coumou and Stefan Rahmstorf of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
The study includes this table of extreme events — “The selection criterion for this (incomplete) list was that the event was documented to be record-breaking (that is, unprecedented) in a long measurement series”: ... Nature: Strong Evidence Manmade ‘Unprecedented Heat And Rainfall Extremes Are Here … Causing Intense Human Suffering’





NOAA has released its “State of the Climate Global Analysis” for May 2012. Here are the highlights:

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
  
• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.

This warmth is particularly impressive because, as NASA noted earlier in the year, “The cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has...
NOAA: Second Hottest May On Record Globally, Hottest For Northern Hemisphere

This is all old news, and essentially meaningless.

The reason it is meaningless is that none of these studies have been verified by real scientists. The published results may or may not be correct, but until they have been verified, they are meaningless and have no value whatsoever.

To date, all of these authors have refused to release their data and details of their methods for examination and verification by real scientists.

You may recall that “The Scientific Method” requires that all published research be checked and verified by other scientists before it is accepted.

This has been a fundamental issue with “climate science”. “Climate scientists” have invariably refused to follow the scientific method, and have pointedly refused to allow their work to be verified. In some cases, such as “The University of Virginia”, they have taken court action in order to suppress the data.

A few months ago two of the leading scientific journals floated the idea that as a condition of publication, all original data and details of methods must be put into the public domain.

This caused conniption fits amongst “climate scientists”, and caused such a backlash that the idea was quickly dropped. Clearly the scientific method does not apply to the oxymoron of “climate science”.

On the few occasions that real scientists have managed to reconstruct the data sets from original sources, the subsequent analysis has shown that the reported results are wrong. In some cases this was due to the incompetence of the “climate scientists”, in some cases it has been deliberate fraud.

The most notorious fraud was that committed by Michael Mann, and perpetuated by Al Gore: the infamous “Hockey Stick”. After Mann refused to release his data, some real scientists reconstructed the original data set and showed that the “hockey stick” was the result of fraudulent manipulation of the data.

A more recent case has been the sensationalist report that Australia has been experiencing the hottest 60 years in a millennium.

When real scientists asked for the data set for verification, the authors refused: “We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter”.

Subsequently, real scientists have found the report to be rife with errors and nonsense, and it has now been quietly withdrawn from publication. Note that its original publication was met with great publicity and fanfare; its withdrawal has been largely ignored.

You can read all about that here: http://joannenova.co...e-weeks-gergis/

So bottom line: anyone can publish anything, but until those results are verified by real scientists, they are meaningless.

[ohreally?]

These are real scientists doing real science.

More non scientific garbage by non scientists.

Researchers Observe Climate Change First Hand Podcast
http://www.npr.org/p...377&m=155717370

[joymab]

Hello,
My name is Joy, i got you ghostvillage.com and i want to have a
good relationship with you, please i need your cooperation,contact me with my email adress,
(joymabou13@yahoo.com )
am yours Joy.
thanks,
Joy

[canuck]

ohreally?, on 25 June 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

These are real scientists doing real science.

More non scientific garbage by non scientists.

Researchers Observe Climate Change First Hand Podcast
http://www.npr.org/p...377&m=155717370

Yes, you are absolutely correct; unfortunately there are so few of them.

Given the huge volume of papers being published by “climate scientists”, it is a physical impossibility for real scientists to scrutinise them all.

Consequently, it is prudent to view any paper in “climate science” as being of dubious value, until verified by a real scientist.

Of course, the process of verification would be facilitated if the “climate scientists” were to make their data and methods available to real scientists.

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that you still haven’t figured out the difference between, and the significance of, “climate change” and “anthropogenic climate change”.

[ohreally?]

canuck, on 29 June 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

ohreally?, on 25 June 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

These are real scientists doing real science.

More non scientific garbage by non scientists.

Researchers Observe Climate Change First Hand Podcast
http://www.npr.org/p...377&m=155717370

Yes, you are absolutely correct; unfortunately there are so few of them.

Given the huge volume of papers being published by “climate scientists”, it is a physical impossibility for real scientists to scrutinise them all.

Consequently, it is prudent to view any paper in “climate science” as being of dubious value, until verified by a real scientist.

Of course, the process of verification would be facilitated if the “climate scientists” were to make their data and methods available to real scientists.

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that you still haven’t figured out the difference between, and the significance of, “climate change” and “anthropogenic climate change”.

Yes, I'm just really slow in comprehending.

You know practically everyday I can find some new study that shows the noticeable upswing of global temperature plus weather patterns is caused by humans and not just natural variation. Whereas, you, continually have nothing new to say that isn't ideologically or politically and maybe economically motivated. Perhaps if you could find contradictory science based evidence you and your ilk would have a rational basis for your position.

Since you probably have economic concerns which are certainly understandable I think you'll find it informative. This site covers the global impact of climate change. http://globe-town.org/

A little about the site.

Quote

(Phys.org) -- Myths circulating online about climate change cause misplaced apathy or alarm. A website built to be the antidote has won a major global award for a team from the University of Southampton.

MasterControl.com/Quality_Programs
Globe-Town.org won third prize in the first international 'Apps for Climate' competition (#Apps4Climate) held by the World Bank, presented at a ceremony in Washington DC. By opening up the facts of climate change in different countries, Globe-Town shows how no one is isolated from the consequences in an interdependent world. The site also reveals how responding to climate change presents a world of opportunities to inspire individuals and entrepreneurs.
The application was conceived by web science and sustainability researcher Jack Townsend and developed with a team including four other PhD students from the Web Science Doctoral Training Centre in Southampton's prestigious department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS).
It was funded by the Research Councils UK Digital Economy Theme which is led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Jack says: "The World Health Organisation has estimated that climate change is killing 150,000 people a year. In order to tackle this challenge, we all need to know how it affects us personally and what we can do about it. Globe-Town does this by connecting the global with the local, so we can explore the risks, responsibilities and opportunities of climate change in an increasingly interconnected world."
Globe-Town is an easy-to-use web application where people can learn about each country's environment, society and economy, so they can understand the challenges and opportunities that it faces in a changing world.

[ohreally?]

canuck, on 29 June 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

ohreally?, on 25 June 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

These are real scientists doing real science.

More non scientific garbage by non scientists.

Researchers Observe Climate Change First Hand Podcast
http://www.npr.org/p...377&m=155717370

Yes, you are absolutely correct; unfortunately there are so few of them.

Given the huge volume of papers being published by “climate scientists”, it is a physical impossibility for real scientists to scrutinise them all.

Consequently, it is prudent to view any paper in “climate science” as being of dubious value, until verified by a real scientist.

Of course, the process of verification would be facilitated if the “climate scientists” were to make their data and methods available to real scientists.

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that you still haven’t figured out the difference between, and the significance of, “climate change” and “anthropogenic climate change”.

Yes, I'm just really slow in comprehending.

You know practically everyday I can find some new study that shows the noticeable upswing is caused by humans and not just a natural variation. Whereas, you continually have nothing new to say that isn't ideologically or politically and maybe economically motivated. Perhaps if you could find contradictory science based evidence you and you ilk would have a basis.

Since you probably have economic concerns which are certainly understandable I think you'll find it informative. This site covers the global impact of climate change. http://globe-town.org/

A little about the site.

Quote

(Phys.org) -- Myths circulating online about climate change cause misplaced apathy or alarm. A website built to be the antidote has won a major global award for a team from the University of Southampton.

MasterControl.com/Quality_Programs
Globe-Town.org won third prize in the first international 'Apps for Climate' competition (#Apps4Climate) held by the World Bank, presented at a ceremony in Washington DC. By opening up the facts of climate change in different countries, Globe-Town shows how no one is isolated from the consequences in an interdependent world. The site also reveals how responding to climate change presents a world of opportunities to inspire individuals and entrepreneurs.
The application was conceived by web science and sustainability researcher Jack Townsend and developed with a team including four other PhD students from the Web Science Doctoral Training Centre in Southampton's prestigious department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS).
It was funded by the Research Councils UK Digital Economy Theme which is led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Jack says: "The World Health Organisation has estimated that climate change is killing 150,000 people a year. In order to tackle this challenge, we all need to know how it affects us personally and what we can do about it. Globe-Town does this by connecting the global with the local, so we can explore the risks, responsibilities and opportunities of climate change in an increasingly interconnected world."
Globe-Town is an easy-to-use web application where people can learn about each country's environment, society and economy, so they can understand the challenges and opportunities that it faces in a changing world.

[ohreally?]

For some silly reason I'm not allowed to edit my own post I have to double post.


Canuck:

Quote

Yes, you are absolutely correct; unfortunately there are so few of them.

Given the huge volume of papers being published by “climate scientists”, it is a physical impossibility for real scientists to scrutinise them all.

Consequently, it is prudent to view any paper in “climate science” as being of dubious value, until verified by a real scientist.

Of course, the process of verification would be facilitated if the “climate scientists” were to make their data and methods available to real scientists.

Incidentally, I couldn’t help but notice that you still haven’t figured out the difference between, and the significance of, “climate change” and “anthropogenic climate change”.

All those studies being done are probably being submitted by MacDonald's employees ( no offense to those employed ) and real scientists don't have the time to read through them while eating a Big Mac.



Yes, I'm just really slow in comprehending.

You know practically everyday I can find some new study that shows the noticeable upswing is caused by humans and not just a natural variation. Whereas, you continually have nothing new to say that isn't ideologically or politically and maybe economically motivated. Perhaps if you could find contradictory science based evidence you and you ilk would have a basis.

Since you probably have economic concerns which are certainly understandable I think you'll find it informative. This site covers the global impact of climate change. http://globe-town.org/

A little about the site.

Quote

(Phys.org) -- Myths circulating online about climate change cause misplaced apathy or alarm. A website built to be the antidote has won a major global award for a team from the University of Southampton.

MasterControl.com/Quality_Programs
Globe-Town.org won third prize in the first international 'Apps for Climate' competition (#Apps4Climate) held by the World Bank, presented at a ceremony in Washington DC. By opening up the facts of climate change in different countries, Globe-Town shows how no one is isolated from the consequences in an interdependent world. The site also reveals how responding to climate change presents a world of opportunities to inspire individuals and entrepreneurs.
The application was conceived by web science and sustainability researcher Jack Townsend and developed with a team including four other PhD students from the Web Science Doctoral Training Centre in Southampton's prestigious department of Electronics and Computer Science (ECS).
It was funded by the Research Councils UK Digital Economy Theme which is led by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
Jack says: "The World Health Organisation has estimated that climate change is killing 150,000 people a year. In order to tackle this challenge, we all need to know how it affects us personally and what we can do about it. Globe-Town does this by connecting the global with the local, so we can explore the risks, responsibilities and opportunities of climate change in an increasingly interconnected world."
Globe-Town is an easy-to-use web application where people can learn about each country's environment, society and economy, so they can understand the challenges and opportunities that it faces in a changing world.

[canuck]

Your series of responses serves to confirm the subtext of these threads: people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts.

In your case, this is manifest in the fact that you have not bothered to inform yourself about the difference between “climate change” and “anthropogenic global warming”. You, like most of the fraudsters in this scam, use the terms interchangeably despite the fact that they each have vastly different meanings.

Since terminological exactitude is fundamental to the whole issue, I suggest you make the effort to read up on the subject; when you understand them, you may gain some understanding of the whole “Global Warming Scam”.