For Snu-Snu/Leftist Guerrilla Freedom Fighter and other Assorted Crooks

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del, Feb 5, 2010.

  1. By Ninad D. Sheth

    It was presented as fact. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change, led by India’s very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus
    on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of
    lies, it turns out.

    The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its
    deceit, unmatched in scope—and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the
    Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.

    The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis
    of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely
    sacrificed.

    The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way.
    Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor
    is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane
    Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like,
    ‘no-science’!

    The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off
    the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of
    procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in
    research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as
    if the money wasn’t enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have
    the coveted Peace Prize.

    But let’s begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever
    in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the
    pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world.
    How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was
    competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of
    differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits,
    nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That’s not
    jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course
    on climatology.

    You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad
    engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads
    from point A to point B.

    THE GATHERING STORM

    There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big
    victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by
    John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy
    Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is
    fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by
    experimental input, any hypothesis can be—indeed, must be—corrected.

    This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific
    in-charge of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit. This
    university was at the epicentre of the ‘research’ on global warming. It
    is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that
    contradicted climate change claims out of reports.

    The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is
    impersonal. There is no ‘us’, there is no ‘them’. There is only the
    quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming
    episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of ‘them’. At
    the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed
    a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as “voodoo science”.

    The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for
    validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in
    confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while
    preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.

    The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that
    some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global
    warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when
    emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in
    November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of
    conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global
    warming scaremongering—amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic
    timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or
    raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or
    not welcome in this ‘scientific fold’.

    HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH

    So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact
    that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now
    being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350,
    some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an
    Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no
    scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.

    On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute
    (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology
    team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a
    $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of
    the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report
    that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact
    of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if
    this is not a neat one, what is?

    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
    --
    All of Usenet is in a psychological, emotional, and antisocial free fall
    into an abyss and fully immersed in a drowning pool of mental illness.
     
    Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del, Feb 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del

    Ferd.Berfle Guest

    "Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > By Ninad D. Sheth
    >
    > It was presented as fact. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    > Change, led by India's very own RK Pachauri, even announced a consensus
    > on it. The world was heating up and humans were to blame. A pack of
    > lies, it turns out.
    >
    > The climate change fraud that is now unravelling is unprecedented in its
    > deceit, unmatched in scope-and for the liberal elite, akin to 9 on the
    > Richter scale. Never have so few fooled so many for so long, ever.
    >
    > The entire world was being asked to change the way it lives on the basis
    > of pure hyperbole. Propriety, probity and transparency were routinely
    > sacrificed.
    >
    > The truth is: the world is not heating up in any significant way.
    > Neither are the Himalayan glaciers going to melt as claimed by 2035. Nor
    > is there any link at all between natural disasters such as Hurricane
    > Katrina and global warming. All that was pure nonsense, or if you like,
    > 'no-science'!
    >
    > The climate change mafia, led by Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, chairperson of
    > the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), almost pulled off
    > the heist of the century through fraudulent data and suppression of
    > procedure. All the while, they were cornering millions of dollars in
    > research grants that heaped one convenient untruth upon another. And as
    > if the money wasn't enough, the Nobel Committee decided they should have
    > the coveted Peace Prize.
    >
    > But let's begin at the beginning. Mr Pachauri has no training whatsoever
    > in climate science. This was known all the time, yet he heads the
    > pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world.
    > How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was
    > competent? After all, this man is presumably incapable of
    > differentiating between ocean sediments and coral terrestrial deposits,
    > nor can he go about analysing tree ring records and so on. That's not
    > jargon; these are essential elements of a syllabus in any basic course
    > on climatology.
    >
    > You cannot blame him. His degree and training is in railroad
    > engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads
    > from point A to point B.
    >
    > THE GATHERING STORM
    >
    > There are many casualties in this sad story of greed and hubris. The big
    > victim is the scientific method. This was pointed out in great detail by
    > John P Costella of the Virginia-based Science and Public Policy
    > Institute. Science is based on three fundamental pillars. The first is
    > fallibility. The fact that you can be wrong, and if so proven by
    > experimental input, any hypothesis can be-indeed, must be-corrected.
    >
    > This was systematically stymied as early as 2004 by the scientific
    > in-charge of the University of East Anglia's Climate Change Unit. This
    > university was at the epicentre of the 'research' on global warming. It
    > is here that Professor Phil Jones kept inconvenient details that
    > contradicted climate change claims out of reports.
    >
    > The second pillar of science is that by its very nature, science is
    > impersonal. There is no 'us', there is no 'them'. There is only the
    > quest. However, in the entire murky non-scientific global warming
    > episode, if anyone was a sceptic he was labelled as one of 'them'. At
    > the very apex, before his humiliating retraction, Pachauri had dismissed
    > a report by Indian scientists on glaciers as "voodoo science".
    >
    > The third pillar of science is peer group assessment. This allows for
    > validation of your thesis by fellow scientists and is usually done in
    > confidence. However, the entire process was set aside by the IPCC while
    > preparing the report. Thus, it has zero scientific value.
    >
    > The fact that there was dissent within the climate science teams, that
    > some people objected to the very basis of the grand claims of global
    > warming, did not come out through the due process. It came to light when
    > emails at the Climate Research Centre at East Anglia were hacked in
    > November 2009. It is from the hacked conversations that a pattern of
    > conspiracy and deceit emerge. It is a peek into the world of global
    > warming scaremongering-amplify the impact of CO2, stick to dramatic
    > timelines on destruction of forests, and never ask for a referral or
    > raise a contrary point. You were either a believer in a hotter world or
    > not welcome in this 'scientific fold'.
    >
    > HOUSE OF CARDS AND COLOUR OF CASH
    >
    > So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. We have the fact
    > that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now
    > being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350,
    > some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an
    > Indian glacier expert, in an interview to a magazine. It had no
    > scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative.
    >
    > On the basis of that assertion, The Energy and Resources Institute
    > (Teri) that Pachauri heads and where Hasnain works in the glaciology
    > team, got two massive chunks of funding. The first was estimated to be a
    > $300,000 grant from Carnegie Corporation and the second was a part of
    > the $2 million funding from the European Union. So you write a report
    > that is false on glaciers melting and get millions to study the impact
    > of a meltdown which will not be happening in the first place. Now if
    > this is not a neat one, what is?
    >
    > http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
    >


    The real challenge is to determine what the IPCC has published that is
    accurate.

    Anger over second climate panel error
    Thursday 04 February 2010

    MPs have reacted angrily to a second mistake in an international climate
    panel report, this time focusing on the Netherlands itself, the Volkskrant
    reports on Friday.

    According to the last IPCC report, published in 2007, some 55% of the
    Netherlands is below sea level and 65% of gross national product is produced
    in that area.

    But according to the national statistics office CBS, just 20% of the country
    is below sea level and 19% of GDP is earned there.

    'I am very disturbed,' environment minister Jacqueline Cramer told MPs. 'I
    do not wish to accept any more mistakes.'

    Last week Cramer said a mistake in the same report about melting glaciers is
    'extremely worrying'.

    The report's information was based on figures from the national environment
    assessment agency PBL, the paper says. Spokesman Joop Oude Lohuis told the
    Volkskrant the UN body had added the percentage of the Netherlands which is
    under sea level to the percentage which is vulnerable to flooding.

    Cramer has now asked the PBL to go through the IPCC's regional report to
    look for more errors.

    MPs described the second mistake as 'shocking', with some suggesting plans
    for dyke strengthening be delayed until there is clarity.

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/anger_over_second_climate_pane.php
     
    Ferd.Berfle, Feb 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del

    my Guest

    "Manatee Memories" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:37:02 -0500, "Ferd.Berfle" <>
    wrote, by way of <hkhaeg$cdh$-september.org>, in
    24hoursupport.helpdesk -->::

    >"Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®.net> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>

    <....>
    >>

    >
    >The real challenge is to determine what the IPCC has published that is
    >accurate.
    >
    >Anger over second climate panel error
    >Thursday 04 February 2010
    >
    >MPs have reacted angrily to a second mistake in an international climate
    >panel report, this time focusing on the Netherlands itself, the Volkskrant
    >reports on Friday.
    >
    >According to the last IPCC report, published in 2007, some 55% of the
    >Netherlands is below sea level and 65% of gross national product is
    >produced
    >in that area.
    >
    >But according to the national statistics office CBS, just 20% of the
    >country
    >is below sea level and 19% of GDP is earned there.
    >
    >'I am very disturbed,' environment minister Jacqueline Cramer told MPs. 'I
    >do not wish to accept any more mistakes.'
    >
    >Last week Cramer said a mistake in the same report about melting glaciers
    >is
    >'extremely worrying'.
    >
    >The report's information was based on figures from the national environment
    >assessment agency PBL, the paper says. Spokesman Joop Oude Lohuis told the
    >Volkskrant the UN body had added the percentage of the Netherlands which is
    >under sea level to the percentage which is vulnerable to flooding.
    >
    >Cramer has now asked the PBL to go through the IPCC's regional report to
    >look for more errors.
    >
    >MPs described the second mistake as 'shocking', with some suggesting plans
    >for dyke strengthening be delayed until there is clarity.
    >
    >http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/anger_over_second_climate_pane.php


    Perhaps you (might have?) meant to type "dike", instead of that 'other'
    word. No offence meant.

    You should complain to the editor at....
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/

    Had you looked at the article you would have know.
     
    my, Feb 5, 2010
    #3
  4. Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del

    my Guest

    "Manatee Memories" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:15:58 -0500, "my" <> wrote, by way of
    <hkhg81$ni9$-september.org>, in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    -->::

    >"Manatee Memories" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:37:02 -0500, "Ferd.Berfle" <>
    >wrote, by way of <hkhaeg$cdh$-september.org>, in
    >24hoursupport.helpdesk -->::
    >
    >>"Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del" <Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®@Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤®.net> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>>
    >>>

    ><....>
    >>>

    >>
    >>The real challenge is to determine what the IPCC has published that is
    >>accurate.
    >>
    >>Anger over second climate panel error
    >>Thursday 04 February 2010
    >>
    >>MPs have reacted angrily to a second mistake in an international climate
    >>panel report, this time focusing on the Netherlands itself, the Volkskrant
    >>reports on Friday.
    >>
    >>According to the last IPCC report, published in 2007, some 55% of the
    >>Netherlands is below sea level and 65% of gross national product is
    >>produced
    >>in that area.
    >>
    >>But according to the national statistics office CBS, just 20% of the
    >>country
    >>is below sea level and 19% of GDP is earned there.
    >>
    >>'I am very disturbed,' environment minister Jacqueline Cramer told MPs. 'I
    >>do not wish to accept any more mistakes.'
    >>
    >>Last week Cramer said a mistake in the same report about melting glaciers
    >>is
    >>'extremely worrying'.
    >>
    >>The report's information was based on figures from the national
    >>environment
    >>assessment agency PBL, the paper says. Spokesman Joop Oude Lohuis told the
    >>Volkskrant the UN body had added the percentage of the Netherlands which
    >>is
    >>under sea level to the percentage which is vulnerable to flooding.
    >>
    >>Cramer has now asked the PBL to go through the IPCC's regional report to
    >>look for more errors.
    >>
    >>MPs described the second mistake as 'shocking', with some suggesting plans
    >>for dyke strengthening be delayed until there is clarity.
    >>
    >>http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2010/02/anger_over_second_climate_pane.php

    >
    >Perhaps you (might have?) meant to type "dike", instead of that 'other'
    >word. No offence meant.

    <....>

    Seeing as how you are using for newsposting a program (Microsoft Windows
    Mail 6.0.6001.18000) originally intended for e-mail might be a reason
    (excuse?) for you not properly attributing (have no fear, I've retained
    several "original" posts in this thread), but it'd be much nicer if you
    _would_ properly attrib in the future. Well, at least you haven't gone
    the route of "top" posting, so hope springs eternal.

    Did you?
    You should complain to the editor at....
    http://www.dutchnews.nl/

    Had you looked at the article you would have know.
     
    my, Feb 5, 2010
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. JoeT
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    6,074
    Malke
    Mar 1, 2005
  2. William Raspe

    Photo Invitation Envelopes - Assorted Color Packs

    William Raspe, Jun 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    351
    William Raspe
    Jun 13, 2008
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,428
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Old Gringo38

    Re: The Freedom Fighter is a good man.

    Old Gringo38, Dec 1, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    481
    anyone
    Dec 3, 2010
  5. NormanM

    Re: The Freedom Fighter is a good man.

    NormanM, Dec 1, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    420
    Old Gringo38
    Dec 1, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page