100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: 'Global Warming's Replacement ... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Kings_Knight
on
Sat 05/22/10 07:16 PM
|
|
Oh. You thought, maybe, that since 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (a/k/a 'AGW') was trashed when those emails revealed how they'd been fudgin' the numbers and manipulatin' data to LIE about what was REALLY goin' on put that whole sordid episode to rest, did ya ... ? Was THAT what you thought, Bunkie ... ? Well, you were ... WRONG. They've changed the game again - 'AGW' out, 'Saving Species', IN. Here comes the pretense 'n BS about the new buzzword: BIODIVERSITY. Expect to hear that 'x' number of species are goin' 'extinct' every day. Expect breast-beating and moaning about the 'fate of the planet's species' from people in unwarranted high places. Expect to be lied to just like you were lied to about 'AGW' ... and expect the same idiots that fell for THAT garbage to fall for THIS garbage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/21/un-biodiversity-economic-report UN says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change' Goods and services from the natural world should be factored into the global economic system, says UN biodiversity report Juliette Jowit | guardian.co.uk | Friday 21 May 2010 The economic case for global action to stop the destruction of the natural world is even more powerful than the argument for tackling climate change, a major report for the United Nations will declare this summer. The Stern report on climate change, which was prepared for the UK Treasury and published in 2007, famously claimed that the cost of limiting climate change would be around 1%-2% of annual global wealth, but the longer-term economic benefits would be 5-20 times that figure. The UN's biodiversity report – dubbed the Stern for Nature – is expected to say that the value of saving "natural goods and services", such as pollination, medicines, fertile soils, clean air and water, will be even higher – between 10 and 100 times the cost of saving the habitats and species which provide them. To mark the UN's International Day for Biological Diversity tomorrow, hundreds of British companies, charities and other organisations have backed an open letter from the Natural History Museum's director Michael Dixon warning that "the diversity of life, so crucial to our security, health, wealth and wellbeing is being eroded". The UN report's authors go further with their warning on biodiversity, by saying if the goods and services provided by the natural world are not valued and factored into the global economic system, the environment will become more fragile and less resilient to shocks, risking human lives, livelihoods and the global economy. "We need a sea-change in human thinking and attitudes towards nature: not as something to be vanquished, conquered, but rather something to be cherished and lived within," said the report's author, the economist Pavan Sukhdev. The changes will involve a wholesale revolution in the way humans do business, consume, and think about their lives, Sukhdev, told The Guardian. He referred to the damage currently being inflicted on the natural world as "a landscape of market failures". |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Sat 05/22/10 07:19 PM
|
|
"biodiversity" is actually a legitimate term used by biologists, usually in describing ecosystems. It's been in common use for at least a decade among biologists. Sad that's it's being used for fear-mongering politicos, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The emails weren't what they were played off to be and proved nothing.
So this Post is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The emails weren't what they were played off to be and proved nothing. So this Post is irrelevant. Except that they proved that the "proof" that the AGW crowd had long touted was BS. But that somehow counts as "nothing" to you.  Indeed, the old adage is more correct than ever-"Politics is show business for the ugly".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The emails weren't what they were played off to be and proved nothing. So this Post is irrelevant. Except that they proved that the "proof" that the AGW crowd had long touted was BS. But that somehow counts as "nothing" to you. Indeed, the old adage is more correct than ever-"Politics is show business for the ugly".
No they didn't. Check out the results of the investigation, not the rumors that were untrue. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
willing2
on
Sat 05/22/10 07:31 PM
|
|
The emails weren't what they were played off to be and proved nothing. So this Post is irrelevant. Except that they proved that the "proof" that the AGW crowd had long touted was BS. But that somehow counts as "nothing" to you. Indeed, the old adage is more correct than ever-"Politics is show business for the ugly".
No they didn't. Check out the results of the investigation, not the rumors that were untrue. You can find those fair and balanced results, on either albore.richmofo or hussein.liar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"biodiversity" is actually a legitimate term used by biologists, usually in describing ecosystems. It's been in common use for at least a decade among biologists. Sad that's it's being used for fear-mongering politicos, though.
Valid point. 'Biodiversity' IS a legit concept - but, to the 'political class', the way it works with 'Neuro-Linguistic Programming' is, 'Control the language, Control the mind'. Witness the 'depth' and 'insight' expressed by 'The ONE' in any (you pick 'um) of his 'speeches' - you know ... the ones he reads from TOTUS ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search This article is semi-protected until July 5, 2010 to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Climatic Research Unit email controversy Hubert Lamb Building.jpg The Hubert Lamb Building, which houses the Climatic Research Unit Date 17 November 2009 Location Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia Also known as "Climategate" Inquiries House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, reported 31 March 2010.[1] The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.[2][3][4] The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach. Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010. The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews. Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones,[6] though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.[6][7] The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was determined not to be challenged by the emails[8] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."[6] The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information"[9] and although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose.[6] The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer[9] and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results.[6] The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable".[6] The findings of the third review have yet to be published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Feel free to doubt climate change: just don't deny it After months of controversy, the University of East Anglia climate unit was exonerated last week over the leaked emails affair. Science editor Robin McKie says there are lessons to be learned – but those who call themselves sceptics must address their own intellectual dishonesty * Digg it (3) * Buzz up * Share on facebook (102) * Tweet this (117) * Comments (246) * Robin McKie, science editor * The Observer, Sunday 18 April 2010 * Article history Meerkats Meerkats in the Gemsbok national park, in the Kalahari desert. Photograph: The Travel Library/Rex Features It was, by many accounts, the worst academic outrage of modern times. A host of emails, illegally obtained from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, "revealed" that researchers were manipulating data about global warming and were guilty of perpetrating "the worst scientific scandal of a generation". At least that is how many writers reacted to the news of the leaking of emails between unit leader Phil Jones and fellow researchers. Last week, however, they adopted a different approach after a report, written by a team of experts recommended by the Royal Society and led by Lord Oxburgh, vindicated the work of the climate research unit, completely exonerated Jones and pronounced that his research was robust and solid. Those hostile writers were largely silent. Given all the hot air they have vented over the affair, this is perhaps not surprising. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/18/climate-change-east-anglia-report Just a few to help ya out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climatic Research Unit email controversy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search This article is semi-protected until July 5, 2010 to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Climatic Research Unit email controversy Hubert Lamb Building.jpg The Hubert Lamb Building, which houses the Climatic Research Unit Date 17 November 2009 Location Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia Also known as "Climategate" Inquiries House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, reported 31 March 2010.[1] The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.[2][3][4] The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach. Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010. The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews. Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones,[6] though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.[6][7] The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was determined not to be challenged by the emails[8] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."[6] The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information"[9] and although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose.[6] The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer[9] and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results.[6] The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable".[6] The findings of the third review have yet to be published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Feel free to doubt climate change: just don't deny it After months of controversy, the University of East Anglia climate unit was exonerated last week over the leaked emails affair. Science editor Robin McKie says there are lessons to be learned – but those who call themselves sceptics must address their own intellectual dishonesty * Digg it (3) * Buzz up * Share on facebook (102) * Tweet this (117) * Comments (246) * Robin McKie, science editor * The Observer, Sunday 18 April 2010 * Article history Meerkats Meerkats in the Gemsbok national park, in the Kalahari desert. Photograph: The Travel Library/Rex Features It was, by many accounts, the worst academic outrage of modern times. A host of emails, illegally obtained from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, "revealed" that researchers were manipulating data about global warming and were guilty of perpetrating "the worst scientific scandal of a generation". At least that is how many writers reacted to the news of the leaking of emails between unit leader Phil Jones and fellow researchers. Last week, however, they adopted a different approach after a report, written by a team of experts recommended by the Royal Society and led by Lord Oxburgh, vindicated the work of the climate research unit, completely exonerated Jones and pronounced that his research was robust and solid. Those hostile writers were largely silent. Given all the hot air they have vented over the affair, this is perhaps not surprising. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/18/climate-change-east-anglia-report Just a few to help ya out. Bogus!!
Wikipeedonya is as corrupt as Husseins czars. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people don't read eh? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That response is SO loaded with irony ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Sun 05/23/10 04:52 AM
|
|
Climatic Research Unit email controversy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to:navigation, search This article is semi-protected until July 5, 2010 to prevent sock puppets of currently blocked or banned users from editing it. Climatic Research Unit email controversy Hubert Lamb Building.jpg The Hubert Lamb Building, which houses the Climatic Research Unit Date 17 November 2009 Location Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia Also known as "Climategate" Inquiries House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, reported 31 March 2010.[1] The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.[2][3][4] The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach. Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010. The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews. Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones,[6] though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.[6][7] The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was determined not to be challenged by the emails[8] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."[6] The UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information"[9] and although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose.[6] The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer[9] and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results.[6] The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable".[6] The findings of the third review have yet to be published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy Feel free to doubt climate change: just don't deny it After months of controversy, the University of East Anglia climate unit was exonerated last week over the leaked emails affair. Science editor Robin McKie says there are lessons to be learned – but those who call themselves sceptics must address their own intellectual dishonesty * Digg it (3) * Buzz up * Share on facebook (102) * Tweet this (117) * Comments (246) * Robin McKie, science editor * The Observer, Sunday 18 April 2010 * Article history Meerkats Meerkats in the Gemsbok national park, in the Kalahari desert. Photograph: The Travel Library/Rex Features It was, by many accounts, the worst academic outrage of modern times. A host of emails, illegally obtained from the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, "revealed" that researchers were manipulating data about global warming and were guilty of perpetrating "the worst scientific scandal of a generation". At least that is how many writers reacted to the news of the leaking of emails between unit leader Phil Jones and fellow researchers. Last week, however, they adopted a different approach after a report, written by a team of experts recommended by the Royal Society and led by Lord Oxburgh, vindicated the work of the climate research unit, completely exonerated Jones and pronounced that his research was robust and solid. Those hostile writers were largely silent. Given all the hot air they have vented over the affair, this is perhaps not surprising. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/18/climate-change-east-anglia-report Just a few to help ya out. Someone else posted a link to the House Of Commons inquiry and after 5 seconds of research I found that the head of the panel was an AGW supporter. I believe I stated as a reply "having a global warming stooge investigating another global warming stooge is like having Nazi judges presiding over the Nuremberg trials".. It means nothing. The emails were released in their entirety and the scientists at East Anglia were purposely misleading and using numbers they knew were faulty. The bottom line is the earth has been in existence for over 4 billion years. You cannot take 150 years of sparse data and expect someone to believe your computer models, which by the way can't even predict the path of a hurricane 24 hours before it makes landfall, can tell us what the climate is going to be 50 years from now. |
|
|
|
|
