Snow in june...in Hawaii...

[elder999]

That info. you posted Elder, was that before or after the revelations of the climate gate scandal?

It was before. Doesn't change the fact that CO2 levels in our atmosphere are higher than they've been in 420,000 years-or that the earth was much warmer when they were last that high.

Oh, and "climategate?" Pretty much a non-event:

Here, you'll see that the scientists were cleared.

as well as here

And Wikipedia shows the results of all the independent inquiries into climategate, all of which absolve the scientists involved of any wrongdoing.


None of which, of course, has anything to do with Hitler not being a left-winger....though he clearly wasn't.

 

[billc]

Nobel prize winning economist Friedrich Von Hayek:


Nazism is Socialism*


Friedrich August von Hayek
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 19 October 2009 Published in the spring of 1933

From the article:


The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National "Socialism" is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to "socialism of the chair" and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form. One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners. But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement. But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscienc..
..........................................................

How many Ph.D's in how many different fields does it take to convince people that Hitler was a lefty and a socialist?

 

[billc]

From PH.D rudhy Rummel's article:

Two prevailing historical myths that the left has propagated successfully is that Hitler was a far right wing conservative and was democratically elected in 1933 (a blow at bourgeois democracy and conservatives). Actually, he was defeated twice in the national elections (he became chancellor in a smoke-filled-room appointment by those German politicians who thought they could control him — see “What? Hitler Was Not Elected?”) and as head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, he considered himself a socialist, and was one by the evidence of his writings and the his economic policies.

 

[Tez3]

Well not everyone has the gall to call the Regius Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge a liar so I have to admire Billcihak for his obviously superior abilities to delude himself into thinking he knows better than the many, many, many people who say Hitler was right wing. Anyone who thinks Nazism was merely an economic system has nothing to learn from the best authorities in the world.


It's funny though how much a Nobel prize means when the person you want to use to confirm your rabbitings has it but how little it's worth when a President you detest wins one.

 

[billc]

Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?

And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.

 

[billc]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

This article is a review of the climate-gate scandal for those who may not be up to speed on the destruction of data and the attempt to keep scientists looking into the global warming data from getting published in scientific journals...

From the article, an overview of what was found...

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong.
More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope.
Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused...

But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing.

In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies:
I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.
Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate."

 

[elder999]

Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?

And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.

None of which has anything at all to do with global warming, climate change, snow in Hawaii or the price of tea in China.....:lfao:

I mean, seriously, unless you can tie the vast global warming left wing conspiracy directly to the Nazi base on the moon, Hitler has nothing to do with the topic at hand, 'm'kay?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

This article is a review of the climate-gate scandal for those who may not be up to speed on the destruction of data and the attempt to keep scientists looking into the global warming data from getting published in scientific journals...

From the article, an overview of what was found...

You do realize that that particular article was from 2009, and all the links I posted are from 2010-so, to recap: climategate=nonevent. THere was no scientist coverup, no destruction of vital info. Those emails? Simple conversation and "what ifs?" a game that scientists have to play, and that the rest of you can't understand.The parties involved were clearerd of wrongdoing by no less than four independent reviews. Those who crow about climategate may as well be crowing about the truth behind 9/11 or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for all the sense that they're making-savvy?

 

[billc]

there is a Nazi base on the moon? See, and people doubted me...

.........................

I think Tez started it...

 

[Tez3]

Tez, do you really want to defend Obama's nobel prize...really?

And for the record, I didn't call him a liar, merely a victim of the left's successful whitewash of history.

What on earth are you talking about?

So one of the best academics in the world has been brain washed by the left? and you don't even know him, it's no wonder you don't think any scientist who is not right leaning has anything worth listening to about global warming. Dear me, I never thought I'd say this but I feel really really sorry for you now.

 

[billc]

Yeah...check post #79, Tez uses the "H" word and I felt obligated to respond. Note: I am not the one who started with the "H" word. I am innocent.

 

[billc]

You give me one history guy, I can give you at least 3 economists, one political science guy and several others, and you feel sorry for me?

 

[Tez3]

Yeah...check post #79, Tez uses the "H" word and I felt obligated to respond. Note: I am not the one who started with the "H" word. I am innocent.

Oh great, a 'she started' whine.

 

[billc]

And on the climate-gate investigation whitewash...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climategate-investigation-a-monumental-whitewash.html

From the article:

Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face.
On his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre rebuts the Parliamentary Committee’s conclusion, noting:
“Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,”
“This is absurd.” McIntyre added, “The trick was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies – a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation.”
McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU itself contend that any of its data was “erroneous”, so to conclude that it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:

In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers.
​

McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee on this very detail of the matter, however, it seems his detailed description has been completely disregarded.
The idea that the “trick” was not to conceal data that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also falls down when you consider that the code within the CRU’s climate models prove that temperature numbers were “artificially adjusted” to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960’s.
This information was leaked along with the inflammatory emails referring to it and provides the real smoking gun. However, predictably, there is no mention of the coding in the STC report...

So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation.
The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that.
It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.

 

[billc]

I was not whining...my voice never changed pitch...

 

[billc]

So sukerkin doesn't have to scroll too much...

Also on the whitewash...

The STC investigation into climategate is farcical on its face. The Committee itself admits that it’s report is insufficient and does not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, noted that it had to produce something quickly before the British general election, and a possible change of government, in May.
“Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this,” Willis said, adding “We had to get something out before we were sent packing.”
Though the Committee condemned the CRU for withholding information requested by outsiders under Britain’s freedom of information laws, it failed to determine whether Professor Jones had actively deleted information to prevent requests to publish it, as indicated by requests made by Jones in emails to his colleagues.
“The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible,” Willis told a news conference.
..........................................................................
SOUNDS LIKE A DEEP LOOK AT THE FACTS, HMMMM.....

 

[billc]

And on the panel investigating climate-gate:

http://climategate.tv/2010/02/16/cl...tewash-third-panel-member-exposed-as-warmist/

from the article:

The so called “independent” investigation into the climategate emails scandal has descended into farce before it is barely off the ground as a third member of the six man panel has been revealed to hold strong views on human induced climate change.
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming.
Professor Boulton, who was officially appointed to the investigative team by civil servant Sir Muir Russell, has also written numerous articles indicating a strong belief in anthropogenic warming.
In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was “over”.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who signed a statement in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
The statement read:

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.
.........................................................

He sounds impartial to me....
​

 

[Tez3]

I feel sorry for you for having such a one track closed mind unable to see beyond the end of your nose when it comes to politics. Life isn't left v right, you can't not believe in global warming because your right wing media heroes don't despite all the evidence. You can't decide that the whole history of a country is wrong just because a few right wing pundits say it is, they've all got agendas and theirs is to make themselves look good by tarring everything bad as leftist.
As I've said before you are going to get sucker punched by your own side creeping up and taking away your freedoms and rights under the guise of fighting the left, McCarthyism all over again. The world is going to suffer because you don't believe in global warming because it's all a left wing plot so why bother cutting those factory emissions, or stopping companies pouring their rubbish in the seas and rivers and why try to save energy in the home and businesses when it's all a left wing plot. Why try to drive greener cars or recycle, those rubbish tips that are getting bigger and bigger aren't real they are the leftists lying again. Let's dump all our e-waste in Africa and poison the land and lets dump our nuclear waste too while we are at it. Lets have more and more packaging as who cares where it ends up, those plastic ties that you get on drinks cans packs who cares if they kill birds and animals and who cares if all that plastic waste is killing albatross chicks because hey it's all a left wing plot, it's not real.

Global warming who cares eh, it's only going to affect the socialists because when your head is stuck up your backside what's there to feel?

 

[billc]

Just to be accurate, the globe has cooled and warmed long before man had industrialized it.
Capitalism is one of the best ways to get the envirnment cleaned up, and if you don't believe me go ask the russians and the chinese and see how their environments worked out during socialism.
I believe in a small and tightly constrained government hedged in by checks and balances and a separation of powers with the rights of the individual paramount. So tell me how this will let me be less free.

The other side believes in a large government in control of what toilet I flush, which light bulbs I can use, what food I can eat at a restaraunt, who controls my medical care, my retirement, my childrens education, what I see on television, and takes up to and over half of the money I make while I am alive and another 50 percent if not more when I die, who divides the country into rich and poor and then targets the rich and exploits the poor, and yet...my side is supposed to be the dangerous side?

 

[Empty Hands]

Capitalism is one of the best ways to get the envirnment cleaned up...

Only if the incentives favor it. In a laissez faire setup, the incentives generally do not favor it, which is why it is wise for the government to put such incentives in place to harness the genius of capitalism and self-interest to clean the environment. If it isn't in a company's interest, it won't do it - remember your basic capitalism?

and if you don't believe me go ask the russians and the chinese and see how their environments worked out during socialism.

Chernobyl was due to a lack of regulation and oversight, not an overabundance of it. As for China, their environment is far worse now than in the past. Not because the government used to be so interested in cleaning the environment, but rather because the country was mostly de-industrialized. The government still doesn't care about the environment, nor does anyone else with any power, hence the horror show of pollution today.

Here's Beijing:

 

[billc]

When the now increasing number of prosperous people in china get tired of the pollution, they will get it cleaned up. Just like the united states did when we first industrialized and then decided that pollution wasn't something we wanted to live with. Wealthy people like nice things and clean places to live.


Capitalism and pollution clean-ups happen because, as above, wealthy people like clean and safe places to live, so the politicians get things cleaned up to get the cash and the votes. The miracle of capitalism at work.