NCDC uses photoshoped images in GW scare story report
-
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact[^] Yet another innocent mistake no doubt. Why is it that all these innocent mistakes fall on the side of more warming, and heightened alarmism? If the mistakes are honest one would expect a fairly even split both ways. Perhaps they are not so innocent after all, like Pachuri and the IPCC intentionally lying about the Himalayan glacier melt in order to "make governments take notice". Or like the UN AIDS program which intentionally overstated the impact of AIDS in order to secure funding. These last are easially googlable shold anyone require proof of how the UN lies to get money. Most people would call it fraud, but, I suppose these people who surely have our best interests at heart can be excused the application of normal law. After all, UN employees dont pay income tax either.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Do you think the lawyers who wrote the memos regarding what could be done legally to gitmo detainees should go to jail? What about the people who did the interrogation and the people who ordered them to do it? As a matter of perspective where do you sit on those issues? As far as things like the UN AIDS program, how would you estimate something like that when a lot of countries in Africa don't even know how many people that live in the country.
fat_boy wrote:
If the mistakes are honest one would expect a fairly even split both ways.
Being fair doesn't sell add space in the media. I don't expect the media left, right, up or down, etc to be fair, just not making things up themselves.
-
Do you think the lawyers who wrote the memos regarding what could be done legally to gitmo detainees should go to jail? What about the people who did the interrogation and the people who ordered them to do it? As a matter of perspective where do you sit on those issues? As far as things like the UN AIDS program, how would you estimate something like that when a lot of countries in Africa don't even know how many people that live in the country.
fat_boy wrote:
If the mistakes are honest one would expect a fairly even split both ways.
Being fair doesn't sell add space in the media. I don't expect the media left, right, up or down, etc to be fair, just not making things up themselves.
wolfbinary wrote:
As far as things like the UN AIDS program, how would you estimate something like that when a lot of countries in Africa don't even know how many people that live in the country.
Er, why not goole it? The ex head of the UN AIDS program, a Belgim scientis, actually stated they overstated the figures and the impact to gain funding. Its not about calculating the figures, its about lying to get money!
wolfbinary wrote:
Being fair doesn't sell add space in the media. I don't expect the media left, right, up or down, etc to be fair, just not making things up themselves.
Completely irrelevant! Just what has your response got to do with scientific erros ion GW documents all erring towards greater warming and heightened alarmism?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
wolfbinary wrote:
As far as things like the UN AIDS program, how would you estimate something like that when a lot of countries in Africa don't even know how many people that live in the country.
Er, why not goole it? The ex head of the UN AIDS program, a Belgim scientis, actually stated they overstated the figures and the impact to gain funding. Its not about calculating the figures, its about lying to get money!
wolfbinary wrote:
Being fair doesn't sell add space in the media. I don't expect the media left, right, up or down, etc to be fair, just not making things up themselves.
Completely irrelevant! Just what has your response got to do with scientific erros ion GW documents all erring towards greater warming and heightened alarmism?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Completely irrelevant! Just what has your response got to do with scientific erros ion GW documents all erring towards greater warming and heightened alarmism?
Evaluating the motives of a reporting source is what responsible viewers do. I don't have any problem with scientific errors, when understood as such. But seeing how people's hard work or life's work can be distorted to fit someone else's cause or beliefs leaves me to pause first to evaluate before I get too excited about it. What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Completely irrelevant! Just what has your response got to do with scientific erros ion GW documents all erring towards greater warming and heightened alarmism?
Evaluating the motives of a reporting source is what responsible viewers do. I don't have any problem with scientific errors, when understood as such. But seeing how people's hard work or life's work can be distorted to fit someone else's cause or beliefs leaves me to pause first to evaluate before I get too excited about it. What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us?
Blah blah blah: The Aids epidemic has been massively overstated, UN experts admit Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495197/The-Aids-epidemic-massively-overstated-UN-experts-admit.html#ixzz0gNSA9Lfb ...[^] The UN (Peter Pior) INTENTIONALLY lied to get more funding for UNAIDS. Answer the question. All the 'errors' in the IPCC 4th AR err towards warming and heightened alarmism. How is this stastically likely?
wolfbinary wrote:
What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us?
CO2 is not trash, its plant food.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Blah blah blah: The Aids epidemic has been massively overstated, UN experts admit Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495197/The-Aids-epidemic-massively-overstated-UN-experts-admit.html#ixzz0gNSA9Lfb ...[^] The UN (Peter Pior) INTENTIONALLY lied to get more funding for UNAIDS. Answer the question. All the 'errors' in the IPCC 4th AR err towards warming and heightened alarmism. How is this stastically likely?
wolfbinary wrote:
What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us?
CO2 is not trash, its plant food.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
How is this stastically likely?
I didn't say it was, but my question still remains. I don't know how they can tell how many people have AIDS in the first place. It sounds like you're getting alarmed yourself about the errors in and of themselves. They made some guess, found out they were wrong, admitted it, then some asshole climbs all over them for being wrong and admitting it that then pisses them off because they're worried people will use their errors for political and monetary gains. I'm not necessarily for or against the HIV funding in Africa, but for people who use errors in generating the numbers as justification for their political bends and ethnic views of other countries, they can go to hell.
fat_boy wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us? CO2 is not trash, its plant food.
emissions=c02 and other gases produced by human activity. So is Nitrogen but that doesn't mean you can't burn your lawn if you use too much. The question I have is, if there is less vegetation on the earth and the temperatures haven't gone up to the degree that scientists thought it would, why? Where is all that CO2 going? Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption.
-
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact[^] Yet another innocent mistake no doubt. Why is it that all these innocent mistakes fall on the side of more warming, and heightened alarmism? If the mistakes are honest one would expect a fairly even split both ways. Perhaps they are not so innocent after all, like Pachuri and the IPCC intentionally lying about the Himalayan glacier melt in order to "make governments take notice". Or like the UN AIDS program which intentionally overstated the impact of AIDS in order to secure funding. These last are easially googlable shold anyone require proof of how the UN lies to get money. Most people would call it fraud, but, I suppose these people who surely have our best interests at heart can be excused the application of normal law. After all, UN employees dont pay income tax either.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
A stock photo was used. It wasn't a specific photo of a flood. And yes the stock photos was of a house with digital flood waters added. Not really what I would call Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact. I wouldn't call it a mistake at all. What if an illustration was used would it still be a mistake. Maybe the artist that made the illustration would be a liar too!
-
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact[^] Yet another innocent mistake no doubt. Why is it that all these innocent mistakes fall on the side of more warming, and heightened alarmism? If the mistakes are honest one would expect a fairly even split both ways. Perhaps they are not so innocent after all, like Pachuri and the IPCC intentionally lying about the Himalayan glacier melt in order to "make governments take notice". Or like the UN AIDS program which intentionally overstated the impact of AIDS in order to secure funding. These last are easially googlable shold anyone require proof of how the UN lies to get money. Most people would call it fraud, but, I suppose these people who surely have our best interests at heart can be excused the application of normal law. After all, UN employees dont pay income tax either.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Why is it that all these innocent mistakes fall on the side of more warming, and heightened alarmism?
WattsUpWithThat states: [The NCDC Draft Report: Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States] has a number of what I would call "emotionally based graphics" in it that have nothing to do with the science. I'd go along with that. But does the use of a Photoshopped image make it more "alarmist"? No. And would the use of an actual image[^], make it any less "alarmist"? No. This is bloody childish nitpicking, and it undermines the credibility of Watts' genuine criticism of anomalies in AGW publications. [Edit: Did not notice Joe Simes' post]
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
fat_boy wrote:
How is this stastically likely?
I didn't say it was, but my question still remains. I don't know how they can tell how many people have AIDS in the first place. It sounds like you're getting alarmed yourself about the errors in and of themselves. They made some guess, found out they were wrong, admitted it, then some asshole climbs all over them for being wrong and admitting it that then pisses them off because they're worried people will use their errors for political and monetary gains. I'm not necessarily for or against the HIV funding in Africa, but for people who use errors in generating the numbers as justification for their political bends and ethnic views of other countries, they can go to hell.
fat_boy wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us? CO2 is not trash, its plant food.
emissions=c02 and other gases produced by human activity. So is Nitrogen but that doesn't mean you can't burn your lawn if you use too much. The question I have is, if there is less vegetation on the earth and the temperatures haven't gone up to the degree that scientists thought it would, why? Where is all that CO2 going? Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption.
wolfbinary wrote:
Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption.
The junk in the dump isn't worth recycling because the junk is not in high demand. When there is a shortage of materials, then the dump junk will rise in value accordingly, and then it will be cost effective to mine and refine. And no, we don't need to artificially manipulate it, that will cause more problems than it solves. I believe dumps are a great thing, because, those resources are consolidated and will be easy to mine. Think of them as storage facilities.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption.
The junk in the dump isn't worth recycling because the junk is not in high demand. When there is a shortage of materials, then the dump junk will rise in value accordingly, and then it will be cost effective to mine and refine. And no, we don't need to artificially manipulate it, that will cause more problems than it solves. I believe dumps are a great thing, because, those resources are consolidated and will be easy to mine. Think of them as storage facilities.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
fat_boy wrote:
How is this stastically likely?
I didn't say it was, but my question still remains. I don't know how they can tell how many people have AIDS in the first place. It sounds like you're getting alarmed yourself about the errors in and of themselves. They made some guess, found out they were wrong, admitted it, then some asshole climbs all over them for being wrong and admitting it that then pisses them off because they're worried people will use their errors for political and monetary gains. I'm not necessarily for or against the HIV funding in Africa, but for people who use errors in generating the numbers as justification for their political bends and ethnic views of other countries, they can go to hell.
fat_boy wrote:
wolfbinary wrote: What exactly do you think all the emissions, trash, etc that come from human activities does to the world around us? CO2 is not trash, its plant food.
emissions=c02 and other gases produced by human activity. So is Nitrogen but that doesn't mean you can't burn your lawn if you use too much. The question I have is, if there is less vegetation on the earth and the temperatures haven't gone up to the degree that scientists thought it would, why? Where is all that CO2 going? Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption.
wolfbinary wrote:
I don't know how they can tell how many people have AIDS in the first place
Well why dont you ask them. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Get it? Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Get it now? Do you actually GET the point of mu post? ITS NOT ABOUT FUCKING AIDS ITS ABOYT THE FUCKING UN!
wolfbinary wrote:
if there is less vegetation on the earth
There isnt. IN fact lok at US forest growth and the Sahara shrinking. There is MORE vegetation. Not only that crop yields have consistently improved throughout the 20th century in line with CO2.
wolfbinary wrote:
Where is all that CO2 going
The air, plants, the sea.
wolfbinary wrote:
Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption
I agree. Al plastics and metals should be recycled. Paper too, or burnt. Everything else is organic mater and should be composted. Man should also reduce chemical polution, heavy metals, dioxins, pesticides as much as possible. Which we are. We just ned to increase CO2 as much as we can for its beneficial effect on p
-
wolfbinary wrote:
I don't know how they can tell how many people have AIDS in the first place
Well why dont you ask them. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Get it? Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Fact is the UN intentionally overstated the case for AIDS to gain funding. Get it now? Do you actually GET the point of mu post? ITS NOT ABOUT FUCKING AIDS ITS ABOYT THE FUCKING UN!
wolfbinary wrote:
if there is less vegetation on the earth
There isnt. IN fact lok at US forest growth and the Sahara shrinking. There is MORE vegetation. Not only that crop yields have consistently improved throughout the 20th century in line with CO2.
wolfbinary wrote:
Where is all that CO2 going
The air, plants, the sea.
wolfbinary wrote:
Landfills primarily are idiotic to me for really one reason, they're a place to dump resources that could be reused if people weren't so lazy, impatient and silo-ed in their thinking of consumption
I agree. Al plastics and metals should be recycled. Paper too, or burnt. Everything else is organic mater and should be composted. Man should also reduce chemical polution, heavy metals, dioxins, pesticides as much as possible. Which we are. We just ned to increase CO2 as much as we can for its beneficial effect on p
fat_boy wrote:
ITS NOT ABOUT f***ing AIDS ITS ABOYT THE f***ing UN!
It's more about funding.
fat_boy wrote:
Man should also reduce [...] heavy metal [...] as much as possible.
CG won't be pleased to read THAT comment! ;P
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. or "Drink. Get drunk. Fall over." - P O'H
