Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Climategate--The Final Chapter >

Climategate--The Final Chapter

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Climategate--The Final Chapter

Old 07-31-2016, 01:17 PM
  #981  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

Sorry, junior. It's not on me to prove your "experts" are lying, it's on you to prove your "experts" are telling the truth and NOT cooking the books as a direct result of the inherent conflict of interest between publicly funded research and what that research purports to show. And so far you are batting a big, fat "0", kiddo.

Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post

Your weak attempts to refute peer-reviewed scientific data with tripe from fringe sites without experts are baseless
O'rly?

LOL

Meanwhile, your "experts" are stuck.....once again!...in sea ice that they claimed wasn't supposed to be there.

Ooopsie!

Polar Voyage Meant To Prove Global Warming STUCK In Ice | The Daily Caller

Ho hum. So much for your "peer reviewed data".







Lemme say it again since you don't seem to understand plain english...


Originally Posted by SayAlt View Post

Show us all why there is no conflict of interest between global warming data and publicly funded research...

...prove the data has NOT been cooked...

...demonstrate that the debate hasn't been rigged by the very people who just got caught rigging their own primary process...


LOL

Hint: you can't.

All you can do is desperately try to change the subject. And everybody knows it.
Heck, you won't even address how/why the warmulist lobby is now attempting to silence debate using the courts!

And yet you claim you can win debates?

LMAO



Last edited by SayAlt; 07-31-2016 at 01:27 PM.
SayAlt is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 04:23 PM
  #982  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by SayAlt View Post
Meanwhile, your "experts" are stuck.....once again!...in sea ice that they claimed wasn't supposed to be there.
Wrong again.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
Flytolive is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 04:26 PM
  #983  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,716
Default

SayAlt my esteemed colleague your rebuttal always consist of cartoons and 1 maybe scientist, I hope you are correct, but the science does not seem to agree. I do like the cartoons. Are you still sure that smoking does not kill. If nothing else the bantering back and forth allow others to review the arguments.
iceman49 is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 04:33 PM
  #984  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Originally Posted by SayAlt View Post
...a direct result of the inherent conflict of interest
There is definitely an "inherent conflict of interest."

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-warning-1968

https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...?cid=N00005582

Perfect Score from Big Oil Awarded To Oklahoma's Inhofe
Posted by sbopp at November 04, 2009 10:30 AM | Permalink
Perfect Score from Big Oil Awarded To Oklahoma's Inhofe

According to a little-known legislative scorecard and Voter Guide from the American Petroleum Institute, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the ideal legislator. The National Wildlife Federation discovered his MVP status with the oil industry’s top trade association, and they have issued a limited-edition trading card to commemorate it. The card highlights some of the Senator’s career milestones, including:

•Sen. Inhofe and his leadership PAC have received $2,182,631 from the oil & gas industries since 1998, according to OpenSecrets.org. During that time, America’s foreign oil imports have increased 21 percent.

•Sen. Inhofe took to the Senate floor in 2003 to call global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

This recognition from Big Oil came as Sen. Inhofe, a climate-change denier, organized a boycott of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which had been working on the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill. Concerned that some Republicans might be willing to engage in some bipartisan compromise on it, Sen. Inhofe has chosen to organize the Republican members of his committee and obstruct the entire process by walking out.

“Senator Inhofe has taken his team off the field before the real action has even started. Behind the scenes, you can be sure Big Oil is giving Sen. Inhofe a standing ovation,” said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation. “The oil industry has led a multi-million dollar assault on clean energy and climate legislation to protect its profits at the expense of America’s energy security. Now, Sen. Inhofe is once again coming through in the clutch for Big Oil.”

Sen. Inhofe told reporters that Republicans will not return to debate the climate bill until a proper EPA analysis is done. Senator Boxer (D-CA), meanwhile, said the EPA had already done a two-week analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill, which came on top of the five-week review of the House-passed bill — and the two bills are “90 percent similar.”

Such facts would not stand in the way of Sen. Inhofe’s plans. Keep in mind that it was Sen. Inhofe who bragged about opposing health care legislation, saying last summer at a town hall meeting, “I don’t have to read it, or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyways.”
Flytolive is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 05:07 PM
  #985  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default




Let me know when you figure out how the taxpayers are funding big oil as democrats are doing with the green energy lobby, hmmkay?

Speaking of, funny how the gov't taxes every gallon of gas big oil sells, but "alternative energy" gets tax breaks.

Who is paying who, again?



SayAlt is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 05:20 PM
  #986  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

See here, folks? They just can't help themselves. They are utterly and in every way morally void...

The Reuters/Ipsos polling team announced Friday that they are dropping the “Neither” option from their presidential preference polls after their tracking polls showed a 17-point swing in favor of the Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, exposing the “Secret Trump Voters” Democrats fear.

Political polling pioneer Pat Caddell said the Reuters news service was guilty of an unprecedented act of professional malpractice after it announced Friday it has dropped the “Neither” option from their presidential campaign tracking polls and then went back and reconfigured previously released polls to present different results with a reinterpretation of the “Neither” responses in those polls.

“This comes as close as I have ever seen to cooking the results,” said the legendary pollster and political consultant. “I suppose you can get away with it in polling because there are no laws. But, if this was accounting, they would put them in jail.”

“What they have done is unprecedented, he said. “They have now gone back and changed their results.”

“This idea of ‘We need a poll to give the result we want’ to fit either our ideological or political needs is beyond dangerous,” he said.

“It is dangerous because it drives the news coverage and it is all by design now, which is why everyone is in such shock at what Reuters did.”

Pat Caddell Blasts Reuters' Back-Rigging Polls to Show Clinton Up


But they aren't cooking the climate data...oh no! You can trust them, right?
SayAlt is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 05:59 PM
  #987  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

A Breitbart article about Pat Cadell and presidential polls. Classic. What does it have to do with global climate change? Who knows. Distract, distract, distract.


Oh no . . . Obama is doooooomed!!!!!!!!!!! (Don’t worry, it’s just Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen talking)

by Andrew Gelman on November 16, 2012

Political strategists Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen report that Romney has a 12-point lead in Missouri and a 4-point lead in North Carolina. Is it even possible for Obama to win in the Electoral College without Missouri and North Carolina? Probably not. And Obama is only leading by 1 point in Florida. Sure, that’s better than trailing by 1 point in Florida, but still, it’s cause for worry!

Caddell and Schoen have the secret:

What voters are looking for—and particularly what swing voters, independents, and disillusioned Obama voters are looking for—is a new direction for America based on fiscal discipline, a balanced budget, and economic growth and leadership.

What about polls that show voters are much more concerned with employment and the economy than with fiscal discipline and a balanced budget? Caddell and Schoen don’t care about those particular polls. After all, they report:

More than anyone else in this race, Paul Ryan has spoken of the need for fiscal discipline and economic growth—two themes that have been largely absent from the Obama-Biden campaign—which explains a large part of the Ryan-inspired Romney bump.

Good point, and good catch on their part. Ryanmania.

Also this bit:

Poll after poll has shown that while voters embrace the idea of higher taxes on the rich, it does not translate into votes. . . . nothing would appeal to independents and swing voters more than if the president were to embrace the findings of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission . . .
Jeez . . . it almost makes you wonder why Bowles and Simpson didn’t just run for president and vice-president themselves.

Caddell and Schoen have the ticket:

The only way Mr. Obama can capitalize on Mr. Clinton’s endorsement is if he channels President Clinton and outlines a balanced-budget plan of his own that speaks directly about the need to reduce spending and to introduce entitlement reform in a humane and rational way. That would appeal to swing voters, and maybe just win the election.

“Entitlement reform” . . . yeah, that’s right. Tell the voters you’ll cut their Social Security benefits, that’ll win election after election, every time.

And Caddell and Schoen are Democratic pollsters, too. This really is scary news for the O-man.

Seriously, though, I haven’t seen advice this bad since the Democrats were told that they lost the House in 1994 because they weren’t liberal enough.

P.S. Also this delightful bit from Caddell’s wikipedia entry:

According to researchers, Caddell had wide influence in the Carter White House, and was the chief advocate of what later became known as Carter’s “malaise speech.”
Sounds like a political expert to me. As for Doug Schoen, see here and here.

Look. If you think entitlement reform is a good idea, fine, go for it. Praise the courage of politicians who support cutting social security, reforming private pensions and state obligations, talk about the long-term benefits of having a sustainable long-term path. But to claim it’s a vote-winner . . . give me a break. Even Mitt Romney didn’t go for that one.

P.P.S. Let me put it another way. I respect that qualitative insights are important and that there’s a role for pundits who know the politicians, who know the voters, and who can do more than simply crunch the numbers. But Caddell and Schoen are supposed to be pollsters. That’s their professional life, and here they are just making stuff up. What’s the point of that? Are they adding any value at all? I don’t think so. The WSJ would be better off running old Art Buchwald and William F. Buckley columns.

P.P.P.S. Yes, I realize that the Caddell and Schoen article actually ran a couple months ago. I just thought it would be more amusing to write this post in the present tense.
Flytolive is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 06:35 PM
  #988  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

Flytolive is offline  
Old 07-31-2016, 06:39 PM
  #989  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
Default

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Series | Grist
Flytolive is offline  
Old 08-01-2016, 02:45 AM
  #990  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2014
Position: Downward-Facing Dog Pose
Posts: 1,537
Default

Originally Posted by iceman49 View Post

SayAlt my esteemed colleague, Are you still sure that smoking does not kill?
Nope. Unlike climate theory, the science has proven it and this long ago.

Are you still certain the climate scientists aren't cooking the data to keep their research funding flowing?


Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post

A Breitbart article about Pat Cadell and presidential polls. Classic. What does it have to do with global climate change?
Like the revelation of the DNC rigging the democrat primary process to shut out Bernie Sanders, it's demonstrative of the political left's habitual lying and under-handed manipulation to make "the facts" fit their world-view...just as it does with it's "scientific data" purporting to "prove" it's religion of climate change.


Originally Posted by Flytolive View Post
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Ho hum. As usual, nothing in there that addresses anything I keep mentioning, such as the hypocrisy of warmists (like people who believe in global warming but continue to fly airplanes in spite of it, for instance <presumably jets, no less>), or the conflict of interest between taxpayer-funded research and any kind of data that shows it's unnecessary, or the plethora of failed prediction after failed prediction, or how the warmulists are now attempting to use the courts to silence their critics and illegally prosecute companies they've hated for decades, etc., etc.

In other words, par for your course.

Last edited by SayAlt; 08-01-2016 at 03:00 AM.
SayAlt is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CLewis
Part 135
5
07-11-2011 06:35 PM
FlyJSH
Regional
666
05-22-2011 05:43 PM
Gajre539
The Boneyard
0
07-19-2010 01:45 PM
hslightnin
Mesa Airlines
207
01-07-2010 06:33 PM
BEWELCH
Flight Schools and Training
43
03-21-2007 09:42 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices