Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[kchriste]

Answer: This is composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15°C and 101325 Pa.

It was more of a rhetorical question than anything else:
Originally Posted by Ross Craney
So how is it all this heavier than air CO2 manages to get to the upper atmoshere ?

 

[tcmtech]

Hopefully we have the time.

Thats the thing. How much time is it going to take and how much will simply never happen because people on both sides of the issue are doing things to clean up their acts. I openly argue the questionable data but I also openly admit to being more conscientious about what I do as well.

Many of the people who believe like I do are not the filth spewing pigs that the Eco extremists make us out to be. Many of us take a more practical ecological approach than many of those who preach it.

Sure we will tease and poke but still we are doing something in some way and hoping its for the better!
We just dont want to loose our rights and freedoms over nothing or be forced to have to pay for things that dont actually do anything because some misinformed nut got their way!

Prove something works and we will accept it happily. But force a useless and expensive alternative on us and we will fight it every way we can.

 

[Mikebits]

Thats the whole problem with this climate issue, to get any reliable information is incredibly hard. The misinformation is so overwhelming that its easy to end up with all of the wrong conclusions from both sides view.

I did address what you are saying in my previous post, did you read it?

 

[BrownOut]

It's not all that complicated. Many will use the gas bag's junk science to obscure the truth, others try to defame the scientists ( shoot the messagner ) while other's still use the variablility what goes along with any natural science to try to disput the science. But for those with the will and energy to read and review the science, they will find a very well thought out and well communicated case. Believe me, I wish I was wrong. I love my cars, trucks, motorcycles, etc. as the next man does, and I would love thinking I was doing no harm by running this whenever, whereever I wanted. But I know the truth, and I think the eco-friendly crowd who is so maligned on this site does in fact do a good job of standing by their convections and doing the right thing, no matter how many times the story is told otherwise.

 

[ke5frf]

Mike.

If everyone approached the topic as sensibly as you, we might actually get some political consensus as well as scientific.

The problem is that everyone approaches a topic like this with bias. Above ALL OTHER notions, I think the biases should be admitted and exposed. I do not hide that I am a conservative and traditionally vote Republican or Libertarian. And I will not deny that my views are shaped by that. That is, my political and economic views.

I am humble enough to admit I don't understand all of the science. But the thing is, you won't see a whole lot of AGW believers typically who don't claim to be far superior in expertise, judgement, and comprehension of the reports. You would almost think Brownout and guys like him were right there at the IPCC hearings going over tree-rings with calipers and XL spreadsheets. Feh bah humbug. I doubt he's read anything more than CNN or AP news reports and internet blogs. And if he has read the IPCC report, what makes him a better judge of the tenacity of the compilers and the data than anyone else?

But beyond even this, the merits that I focus on are the motives and biases of the scientists. I believe that we have a CLEAR example with this controversy that shows that scientists have overplayed and overstated their importance and ethical position in the world in recent years.

There is way more to this than just global warming. It icuts to the very core of church/state, creationism/evolutionism etc.

Let me explain. This shouldn't be a religious matter. It isn't a religious matter. But you'll often see antagonists equate skeptics with bible thumping wacko right wing Jim Jones types. Often a common thread of animosity exists between atheism and dogmatism of science.

Scientists and atheists have pitted themselves against spiritual tradition in our culture.

Now, I'm not particularly religious. I haven't sat through a full church service in decades. I make an effort to go to church for Easter and sometimes Christmas. I feel that the human psyche needs spiritual nutrition as well as practical education and learning.

I'm probably going to catch flames for bringing up religion, but I do have a point.

The movement towards getting religious references out of schools has a purpose. It is a power struggle, an effort to influence and engineer the future of society. Religion has always stood as an authority in our culture. Without religious authority, without fear of a spiritual power above human understanding, a vacuum is formed. People need organization, structure, a common morality. To put it bluntly, science is a tool for atheists to use to fill that power void. This is why atheists embrace science at almost dogmatic levels and vice versa.

The goal of the movement (not an organized conspiracy mind you, just a philosophical shift) is to set government and science in charge of human existance. Its a power vacuum that needs to be filled. Humankind needs an authority and science as a philosophy has established itself as worthy of guiding us in many regards.

However, SCIENTISTS are no more virtuous or worthy of power or respect than priests (and that isn't an insult to priests who many are definitely worthy of respect.) Scientists are merely individuals trained in a method of investigation. Science is wonderful but scientists have all the human failings that the least among us possess.

They are in no position to define our moral compass, though more and more often they attempt to do so. So many things cannot be adequately defined by science. Love for instance. Science cannot tell you WHY murder is wrong. Science cannot tell us why compassion for the less advantaged is noble. Science cannot explain why racial biggotry is immoral. All they can do is offer evidence that supports a theory. It is up to humanity to accept or reject that evidence.

I have seriously gone off on a tangent here. It is important for me to note that it is EQUALLY important that religion doesn't stand above science in the balance of power or human influence. Both philosophies quickly become dogmas. They both offer opportunity for abuse. And in fact, in historical context both religion and science/atheism HAVE IN FACT been the motives behind great evil.

But both have great capacity for good and furthering of human kind too. They both have a place. They both have a rich history of good. We both wouldn't be sitting here at our computers tonight had it not been for men like Tesla, Newton, Einstein, Edison.

We also wouldn't be here today in the same capacity if not for men like Paul, Constantine, Martin Luther, several Popes, Mohammad, Rev. Martin Luther King Jr, and Jesus of Nazareth himself.

religion has guided our social and legal codes while science has advanced technology, medicine, and agriculture.

Ah. My apologies for sidetracking the subject.

But this ties in, because ultimately science, or rather SCIENTISTS, can not set themselves up in the position of manipulating public opinion...at least not on the slightest of false pretenses or hidden bias/agenda. There is AMPLE evidence that some bias exists, which would naturally be expected in midst of the Earth sciences. This cannot be, and the public is smart enough to sense it. We are also smart enough to balance our ethical beliefs with the facts and judge the direction of environmental policy at the voting booth.

Honestly, this subject could encompass pages and pages of text. It is more a matter of philosophy than anything else for me. I'm not going to let a James Hansen or Michael Mann dictate environmental policy any more than I'm going to allow Jimmy Swaggart to dictate economics or Pat Robertson foreign affairs.

 

[tcmtech]

I did address what you are saying in my previous post, did you read it?

Sorry I didn't catch all of it. I had bit of a distraction running on the side if you didn't notice.
I re read it. Solid valid points I may say.


Ke5frf. Well put and thank you.

 

[kchriste]

And in fact, in historical context both religion and science/atheism HAVE IN FACT been the motives behind great evil.

What great evil event has been motivated by science?
What great evil event has been motivated by atheism?

 

[BrownOut]

You would almost think Brownout and guys like him were right there at the IPCC hearings going over tree-rings with calipers and XL spreadsheets.

Nope, I made my points and defended them just as you did. I did nothing more and nothing less. You can't seem to stand someone who acutally knows and understands the issues and can clearly communicate his knoweldge. You seem to always need to make personal attacks instead of just discussion the issues.

To put it bluntly, science is a tool for atheists to use to fill that power void. This is why atheists embrace science at almost dogmatic levels and vice versa

Science is a tool to meet the challenges of the future, just as it was always served mankind. Whatever it is about this cult of personality that posses people to attack the very scientists that serve to solve the challenges that man faces, and then try to defame them at every turn makes things harder than they should be. As I've stated many time, I ( and, as you've said "others like me" ) are familiar with the issues and we don't take everthing we hear as some sort of religious gospel. Indeed, there are supposedly other scinetists with opposing views that we don't blindly follow. But we do know the methods and have some training in classical science, math and engineering, so we do resist the efforts by the distractors to suggest we're acting like a bunch of sheep and blindly following the scientists off a cliff. Over and over, I've had to defend myself for simply stating what I know about the issues, mostly becuse those on the other side don't want to hear what my side has to say about it. On the issues we've discussed here, I had to do some reading and research, and I uncovered some important details which wasn't proviously being discussed, and should have been. For my efforts, I've been taunted and personally attacked by the little cabal that want's to deny the science, so they want to deny anyone who defends it. For those who want to see the issues more clearly, they can stop trying to kill the messanger.

 

[ke5frf]

What great evil event has been motivated by science?
What great evil event has been motivated by atheism?

Are you kidding me?

How many innocent soviet citizens were murdered by Stalin because of iron-handed tyranical secularism? How many Jews died at the hands of German scientists trying to prove Caucasian superiority? How many innocent people in Cambodia died when Pol Pot (athiest, socialist, communist) wreaked genocide?

How many Japanese died in one hour when science brought us into the atomic age?

How many men died when science brought us gunpowder, lethal injections, chemical weapons?

How many SCIENTISTS have been employed as puppets of their masters? Abusing their education and position to manufacture weapons of destruction?

Science and atheism, as I said, can become dogmatic just as easily as religion.

 

[Ross Craney]

So did the Catholic church in 1632.

How do you define air? There is CO2 in air.

I don't define air, I simply state a line from a CO2 data sheet issued by Universal Industrial Gases Inc. I ask a simple question but it is ignored & this is the whole problem with the climate change message. You are expected to accept what is told & ask no questions. Unfortunately people are becoming cynical of government agendas & with just cause.
Hole in the ozone
Year 2000 bug
Weapons of mass destruction
Worst of the worst terrorists held for 7 yrs then released
Global cooling changed to global warming changed to climate change
Cororate America who privatises profits & socialises debt
Carbon Tax which is a tax on living standards

I could go on & probably will in the near future

 

[BrownOut]

How many people died from religious crusades? How many native Americans were exterminated in the name of religion. How many of the great societies of the Aztecs, Incas and Mayas were murdered by the Christans? How many Jews were murdered by the christan Germans? Don't blame scientists when governments use technology to murder. The decision to drop bombs on Japan wans't made by any scientist. Science has stopped plagues, provided better sanitation, transportaion, health, housing and made life better for billions of people. Science has provided the ablity to educate, inform and entertain and even for the very technology you use to post your criticism on here.

 

[kchriste]

Are you kidding me?

No.

How many innocent soviet citizens were murdered by Stalin because of iron-handed tyranical secularism?

Stalin and communism were a result of the greedy Czars and the rebelion of the poor against their oppressors.

How many Jews died at the hands of German scientists trying to prove Caucasian superiority?

I don't think the SS and the Nazi's were scientists. More like crazy superstitious nut bars with guns. In fact, Hitler had the support of the Christian church in his anti Semitic actions early on in the war. It was only later that the church tried to distance itself from the Nazi party. BTW, the swastika is a religious symbol.

How many innocent people in Cambodia died when Pol Pot (athiest, socialist, communist) wreaked genocide?

I don't know enough about that to comment.

How many Japanese died in one hour when science brought us into the atomic age?

The dropping of the Abomb was not motivated by an atheist USA nor by science. It was motivated by the desire to end the war quickly but mostly to demonstrate US military superiority to the USSR.

How many men died when science brought us gunpowder, lethal injections, chemical weapons?

Are you advocating gun control?

How many SCIENTISTS have been employed as puppets of their masters?

I won't argue that. You could say that of any human being, including the voting public spoon fed from Fox News, etc.

 

[kchriste]

Hole in the ozone

Fixed by the ban on CFCs.

Year 2000 bug

Fixed by thousands of programmers working overtime till 1999/12/31.

Weapons of mass destruction

GW Bush. Another GW denier.

Global cooling changed to global warming changed to climate change

No. More like:
Global cooling, whoops we made a mistake and owned up to it.
Global warming changed to climate change because, while the average global climate is warming, the real effect will be a cooling in some areas but a warming in most others.

Corporate America who privatises profits & socialises debt

When has this ever been in doubt?

Carbon Tax which is a tax on living standards

No. It is an attack on a lifestyle.

 

[kchriste]

I don't define air, I simply state a line from a CO2 data sheet issued by Universal Industrial Gases Inc.

Yes, CO2 is heavier than air. It also will mix with air and disperse into it given enough time. The reason for the MSDS label is because you will die if you try to breathe pure CO2. So it would be very dangerous in a confined space if it was released. Outside in an open field the wind and natural convection would mix it with the air and make it harmless quickly.
It would then add to global warming. (I had to add that!)

 

[ke5frf]

"Quote:
How many SCIENTISTS have been employed as puppets of their masters?
I won't argue that. You could say that of any human being, including the voting public spoon fed from Fox News, etc."

BINGO!!! Give that man a cigar!

Or conversely, any human being, including Al Gore being spoon fed by James Hansen, or vice versa.

And your replies about the evils that science and atheism have been part of are sidesteps. As my long, earlier, post indicated...Science is NOT scientists and scientists ARE NOT science. Just as religion isn't priests and priests aren't religion.

Religion and science are philosophies, human created institutions that can be abused.

Stalin murdered in the name of atheism, secularism, and the promotion of state-funded science. Any uprising to defend traditional religious or free market ideals was quickly crushed. Czarist Russia is a no-sequitar. This is like saying George Bush invaded Iraq because of English Taxation in the early 1700s. Once Stalin and Communism established control, the mistakes of previous rulers were history.

The SS didn't have scientists? Jeez man, some of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century were German and on Nazi payrolls. You've never heard of Wernher von Braun?

What about Eugenics? Eugen Fischer, Nazi geneticist? Eugen Fischer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the motives may be a blend of religious and scientific, but the simple fact remains that brilliant scientists allowed personal bias to influence the nature of their work. Think Jews are inferior? Then you are perfectly justified in butchering them in the sake of science.

And Pol Pot? How old are you? Have you never heard of Vietnam and Cambodia?

Perhaps you should expand your reading beyond Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" and bone up on history....this way you can see how dogma creeps into every facet of human existence.

 

[ke5frf]

Stupid double post

 

[kchriste]

This is like saying George Bush invaded Iraq because of English Taxation in the early 1700s.

He invaded Iraq because they threatened his Dad.

The SS didn't have scientists? Jeez man, some of the most brilliant scientists of the 20th century were German and on Nazi payrolls. You've never heard of Wernher von Braun?

You've totally missed my point. The MOTIVE for the Nazi party and WW2 had nothing to do with science and every thing to do with ideology and an economy crippled by WW1 reparations!

And Pol Pot? How old are you? Have you never heard of Vietnam and Cambodia?

43. Never paid attention to Cambodia and Vietnam. I can't know everything in all it's intricate details hence I won't try and argue about something I know little about.

Perhaps you should expand your reading beyond Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth"

I've never read it.

and bone up on history..

So should you.

 

[BrownOut]

Hitler was Roman Catholic

Stalin was schooled in a priest seminary, where he was taught to defend the poor and disadvantaged against the rich and privialedged.

Pol Pot was Buddist and also attended Catholic school. The Kumar Rouge was also Buddist. Pol Pot was against the advances of science and tried to destroy or suppress them.

 

[Ross Craney]

Fixed by the ban on CFCs.

Fixed by thousands of programmers working overtime till 1999/12/31.

GW Bush. Another GW denier.

No. More like:
Global cooling, whoops we made a mistake and owned up to it.
Global warming changed to climate change because, while the average global climate is warming, the real effect will be a cooling in some areas but a warming in most others.

When has this ever been in doubt?

No. It is an attack on a lifestyle.

And again the point is missed. People don't trust Governments or their agendas any more. If the Government says something is good for you or neccessary, people now days tend to believe that the Gov't
has a hidden agenda & is about to do a job on them. I can understand why.

 

[ke5frf]

Hitler was Roman Catholic

Stalin was schooled in a priest seminary, where he was taught to defend the poor and disadvantaged against the rich and privialedged.

Pol Pot was Buddist and also attended Catholic school. The Kumar Rouge was also Buddist. Pol Pot was against the advances of science and tried to destroy or suppress them.

"Hitler was Roman Catholic."

Yes, ....and? Liberache was gay, what does that have to do with anything?
You wouldn't make a good attorney. Please stick to topics relevant to the conversation. Nobody here claimed Hitler was a scientist or atheist.

"Stalin was schooled in a priest seminary, where he was taught to defend the poor and disadvantaged against the rich and privialedged."

A LITTLE more relevant, but not much. If I went to clown school would that make me a clown? They have a climateology class at LSU. If I take that class will it make me a climateologist? No? Ah, then Stalin attending a seminary doesn't make him a priest or reflect his religious views then. Glad we see this now.

"Pol Pot was Buddist and also attended Catholic school. The Kumar Rouge was also Buddist. Pol Pot was against the advances of science and tried to destroy or suppress them"


ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHH ooooooo HHHHEEEEEEEE!!!!

Brownout no man. Please. Stop while you are ahead. You are totally losing all credibility

OK. Seriously. Do you mean Khmer Rouge? You do realize that the Khmer Rouge wasn't a person, right? Khmer Rouge was the Cambodian COMMUNIST government. Pol Pot was its leader. He had rejected Buddhism. BTW what is a "buddist"? Is that someone who worships flowers? Please go read a book.

Here is what the Khmer Rouge did to Buddhism:
Preah Maha Ghosananda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUIT WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD.