Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:50:02 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland  (Read 18311 times)
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 06:45:41 PM
 #141

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?
1480899002
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480899002

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480899002
Reply with quote  #2

1480899002
Report to moderator
Transactions can optionally carry transaction fees. Whoever mines the block which ends up containing your transaction will get the fee. The Bitcoin client will sometimes force you to pay a fee when it thinks that no miner will accept your transaction otherwise.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480899002
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480899002

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480899002
Reply with quote  #2

1480899002
Report to moderator
1480899002
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480899002

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480899002
Reply with quote  #2

1480899002
Report to moderator
1480899002
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480899002

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480899002
Reply with quote  #2

1480899002
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 06:49:24 PM
 #142

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

Who's discouraging you? You have the IPCC and scientific journals - both of which have been suggested in the last ten minutes. That sounds like encouragement to me.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
February 04, 2012, 06:50:10 PM
 #143

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 06:53:37 PM
 #144

Yes, please discourage me from learning about climate change. What is the point of that?

I am not. By all means read and learn. But its nonsensical to give more weight to your own conclusions which are inevitably based on a tiny subset of all the available science (and likely, with very limited ability to properly parse the science) than to the IPCC report. What the IPCC does, is not producing science but reviewing science, what you seem to be doig, and that by itself is a monumental task thats carried about by 100s of our brightest scientists. To put it mildly, a single layman is not likely to make a more accurate assessment.

But he doesn't trust the IPCC, probably because of the email scandal, which in my opinion, was the result of a few scientists being frustrated by all the brownlash propaganda, and thus feeling a need to bolster data to fight the Big Oil propaganda.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
 #145

Ok, then I will continue to do what I have been saying I was doing this entire time. Most of this thread has been me trying to find out what source of information was considered authoritative. Skepticalscience, IPCC, etc. Once that was established (I am the one who first introduced the IPCC reports into this thread), I thought we could stop talking about the earth turning into venus etc. Then P4man moved the goalposts back with his talk of anoxic events, and now we have returned to accepting the IPCC as the authoritative source. If the media disagrees with the IPCC, then the media is wrong. Agreed?


But he doesn't trust the IPCC, probably because of the email scandal, which in my opinion, was the result of a few scientists being frustrated by all the brownlash propaganda, and thus feeling a need to bolster data to fight the Big Oil propaganda.

I trust the IPCC as much as I trust any group of scientists, I have never even read the climategate emails. I bet it is just a bunch of technical talk taken out of context. Maybe some extra "we want to prove this theory" rather than only testing hypotheses. This is normal (although not really good) for scientists to do.

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:06:26 PM
 #146

Well, to be honest I trust the IPCC slightly less than other groups of scientists due to how politicized climate science has become.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:08:19 PM
 #147

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:11:41 PM
 #148

I think the biggest difference between us is that I trust scientists less than you.

Take a hard investigative look at Frederick Seitz, the Oregon Petition and the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute. They are the prime sources for creating skepticism regarding climate science. Look hard at their methods, their credentials, their funding sources, and their motivations.

Their methods are deceptive. I've explained this.

Their credentials are typically self appointed economic theorists.

Their funding sources are always Big Oil.

Their motivations are zero regulations and property rights (libertarians).

The information is all there.

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:17:52 PM
 #149

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.

You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Let's assume that you might not be fully able to parse the science (which is probably true for most of us). An alternative and equally viable method to strengthen your view of climate science data is to look closely at the best arguments that big money can produce against climate change. And those arguments lack credibility when examined closer.

I'm strongly suggesting that you take a hard look at the Oregon Petition. Look at its methods and credibility. Question why it was created, given the means with which it was created.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
 #150

It is in fact quite funny. The Oregon Petition actually proves that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that climate change data is sound and solid.

Because if the science wasn't sound, then there would be an equal amount of credible scientific data arguing against climate change, and the dubious Oregon Petition either wouldn't have been necessary at all, or would've contained signatures of actual published climate change scientists with data against climate change instead of signatures of dentists, engineers, surgeons, etc.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:29:48 PM
 #151

I don't know what this has to do with me. I already assume that oil companies are putting out disinfo, the cato institute is known to be corporatist, and the other people and groups you describe probably are too. I think my time would be better spent reading IPCC reports.
You need to understand the source of your skepticism.

Oh? You know the source of my skepticism? I have never heard of the things you are talking about, yet they are the most likely source of my skepticism?

The source of my skepticism has been described very clearly in this thread. I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist. They both agreed that things were not nearly as clearcut as the media/NASA would have people believe. I began reading various AGW and denier sites. I read the most recent lindzen paper and the peer reviewer comments from PNAS. The I moved on to the IPCC reports. So far the IPCC reports have confirmed for me that things are much more nuanced than most people are willing to take the time to understand. Why else would the thing be 900 pages long?

I have no idea who you are arguing with but it is not me.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
 #152

My above post about the Oregon Petition stands. You really do need to factor it in.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:36:11 PM
 #153

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:38:50 PM
 #154

Did you know that the Heartland Institute likes to trot out the Oregon Petition as an important document which purportedly disputes climate change?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:45:39 PM
 #155

Oh? You know the source of my skepticism? I have never heard of the things you are talking about, yet they are the most likely source of my skepticism?

The source of my skepticism has been described very clearly in this thread. I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

So, yes, I do know the source of your skepticism. It's in part the words of Richard Lindzen, as acknowledged by you just now, and apparently with you not realizing that he is an associate of the very firms and documents that I've been claiming are the source of your skepticism.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:56:16 PM
 #156

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

While this is an improvement (at least now you have a connection), and I will look into it... I believe you still have a logic failure.

Did you know Richard Lindzen was lead author on chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC report?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 07:59:44 PM
 #157

I don't know why you didn't just post this since it is so short.

Oregon Petition:
Quote
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

This statement is consistent with what I have read in the IPCC reports so far. Please find where there is a contradiction.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
 #158

I watched a Richard Lindzen debate with another climate scientist.

Did you know that Richard Lindzen is a writer for the Heartland Institute? I've asked you to research the Heartland Institute.

While this is an improvement (at least now you have a connection), and I will look into it. I believe you still have a logic failure.

Did you know Richard Lindzen was lead author on chapter 7 of the 2001 IPCC report?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

Then clearly he should not be, if he chooses to affiliate himself with organizations such as the Heartland Institute. And that would be because the Heartland Institute promotes the Oregon Petition, is funded by Exxon Mobil, and puts out a publication entitled 'Environment and Climate News', when in fact its editor has zero credentials in those fields.
gewure
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364


[#][#][#]


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 08:02:06 PM
 #159

Quote
“However, experts from around the globe pointed out that the cataclysmic chart had no scientific support and was contradicted by all of the most recent satellite images.  Now the Scottish map-makers responsible for the disappearance of 115,830 square miles of polar ice have admitted publicly they were wrong.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/map_makers_admit_greenland_gaffe_1_2077854

Let's see how this mistake could have happened.

Who owns the map maker ?

In 1980, Readers Digest bought them out, then in 1985 News International bought them, which HarperCollins Publishers bought in 1989, along with Collins Publishers (UK) and Harper & Row (US). Then, in March 2007, Ripplewood Holdings LLC led a consortium of private equity investors who bought the company through a leveraged buy-out.

Now, Ripplewood Holdings is a bit of a mystery as most private equity firms, but it's led by Timothy C. Collins, who has a very interesting background.

Sits on the board of CitiGroup, and oh looky here, he is on the Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderburg Group, was a VP at Lazard Global, and is also a Yale graduate. Skull and Bones, anyone? Yes those old ruling elite and globalists we have to put up with...

All fits in quite well with the global warming Agenda 21 biodiversity scam to fake a map to make people think we are losing all of our precious ice caps.
Great more ammo for the bone-headed global warming deniers...

+
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 08:05:34 PM
 #160

You'll notice that the original story hasn't been mentioned since the first page of this thread. So apparently noone really cares.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!