UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
oh, a paid spokesperson for nuclear energy and rainforest logging companies with no education in climatology.
you are so smart.
"global warming petition project" peer reviewed and everything???
- Thread starter tobinates559
- Start date
oh, a paid spokesperson for nuclear energy and rainforest logging companies with no education in climatology.
you are so smart.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
[h=1]Study: Wikipedia perpetuates political bias [/h]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
oh, a paid spokesperson for nuclear energy and rainforest logging companies with no education in climatology.
you are so smart.
Wikipedia was founded on the notion the Internet is a self-correcting machine: by harnessing collective intelligence through an open-source platform, the facts will ultimately come to light. But a new study shows that collective intelligence generally produces biased information, except in a narrow range of circumstances. Northwestern’s Shane Greenstein and the University of Southern California’s Feng Zhu analyzed a decade’s worth of Wikipedia articles on U.S. politics and found that only a handful of them were politically neutral.
- Conservapedia posted the news about liberal corruption of global warming science (climategate) on its Main Page on the very first day: November 19th. But it took Wikipedia over two weeks to give priority to this bombshell, and even now its entry is remarkably biased against it.[SUP][1][/SUP]
- 100's of other climatologists have been removed from the category "Global warming skeptics", which Wikipedia decided to delete.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]
- Wikipedia's most controversial pages are guarded by liberal elite. Thereby, accuracy is replaced with ideology. [SUP][4][/SUP] The first one-hundred and sixty-eight words on Wikipedia's Global Warming page contains multiple conjectures, major errors and bias. "increase in the average measured temperature ... since the mid-twentieth century" that same paragraph "solar variation combined with volcanoes ... and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward." Which is it, warmer or cooler from 1950? "very likely due" "probably had" or "the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions"- unsubstantiated bias.
- Liberal elites at Wikipedia have embraced the ideology of Al Gore's Global Warming. It is with great sadness that ClimateGate has emerged as a worldwide news story. In an attempt to shrug-off the story, Wikipedia labels the page Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, with ClimateGate as only a redirect. [1] Next, Wikipedia claims the CRU was illegally hacked but other sources say possibly an inside job. [2] Finally, Wikipedia is sure to include plenty of climate change alarmists views discounting the incident; a smear campaign, an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen, James Hansen "no effect on the science" , UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband "We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt..." [3]
- A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he "rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period."[SUP][5][/SUP]
- Michael Mann is a well known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the Climategate scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann's page. [4]
- The Wikipedia article Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation covers conservative Ken Cuccinelli's investigation of Michael Mann while he was on the faculty of the University of Virginia. The article immediately characterizes Cuccinelli as a "conservative Republican party politician and global warming skeptic." The article then describes the "Initial Public Reaction" as being against Cuccinelli's investigation without quoting sources that supported the investigation.
- The biography of the Republican candidate for Governor Ken Cuccinelli quotes the Washington Post as describing Cuccinelli's actions as an "anti-climate science crusade" but does not quote any sources which praise Cuccinelli's investigation. The biography is turning particularly shrill now that Cuccinelli's 2013 campaign is underway.
- Wikipedia defines Denialism as "choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth". It then gives as two of its main examples, Exxon-Mobil contributing to climate change research, and the Bush Administration's refusal to submit the Kyoto Protocol for ratification.[5]
- Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales tried to launch an even more biased wiki called "Wikia Green" in 2008 and invited people with such bias to build that website.[SUP][6][/SUP] The goal of the site is "We are building the best resource for our citizens of the Earth to learn about the environment and how to live a more sustainable life."[SUP][7][/SUP]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
too afraid to even cite your own sources now, mahsistah?
that's what happens after i catch you citing white supremacists, rush limbaugh proteges, long debunked racist photos of dead black kids, the heartland institute (aka the people who think that smoking won't harm you because tobacco companies paid them to say so) and the like.
you are a fucking hack and an embarrassment.
that's what happens after i catch you citing white supremacists, rush limbaugh proteges, long debunked racist photos of dead black kids, the heartland institute (aka the people who think that smoking won't harm you because tobacco companies paid them to say so) and the like.
you are a fucking hack and an embarrassment.
travisw
Well-Known Member
you mean you don't trust conservapedia?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Your indoor grow was 5k watts and yielded 3 lbs?
How big is your footprint?
then you john galt that shit up by your own admission then come here and pay homage to all that is "for the greater good".
Talk about a partisan hack useful idiot.
But hey if the clown shoes fit wear them proud baby unk.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Wow... great handful of papers to gander at (even one from Scafetta).
[HR][/HR]Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010)
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
Advances in Meteorology Volume 2011 (2011)
[HR][/HR]
I got them from a fresh comment on a SkepSci thread
It still seems the "800 year lag" thing is inconclusive but ol' Sol is making its importance in the equation more relevant.
[HR][/HR]Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008
Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010)
Solar activity and Svalbard temperatures
Advances in Meteorology Volume 2011 (2011)
[HR][/HR]
I got them from a fresh comment on a SkepSci thread
It still seems the "800 year lag" thing is inconclusive but ol' Sol is making its importance in the equation more relevant.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
damn, what a little crybaby you are. do you ever stop whining, you little bitch?
did i mention my 1k veg room or my 1200 watt flowering room in the bedroom?
did i mention that i left 6 plants to finish flowering in the 3200 watt (operating at 2800 watts due to bad capacitator) garage?
or did you just feel like being a little crybaby again?
Doer
Well-Known Member
ESTRAGON: People are bloody ignorant apes.
VLADIMIR: Pah!
ESTRAGON: Charming spot. Inspiring prospects. Let's go.
VLADIMIR: We can't.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We're waiting for Godot.
ESTRAGON: (despairingly). Ah! (Pause.) You're sure it was here?
VLADIMIR: What?
ESTRAGON: That we were to wait.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey, please stop wagging your colas, I'm beginning to feel small. But, you still like me, right?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i'm actually working on a dance called "do the doer" right now.
i've got a rocking keytar solo figured out, just need some catchy lyrics and dancing grannies now.
heckler73
Well-Known Member
What manner of culling are you referring to?
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Any excuse will do right? Bring on the carbon credits, you're going to single highhandedly pay for my new bike under the new tax break my special interest is lobbying for: single cylinder motorcycles.
You need to grow more better like the bear does, now thats truly impressive environmentally responsible growing yield right there.
Put your money where your pie hole is.
STOP FUCKING UP MY CLIMATE.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
He sure gives the illusion of being environmentally conscientious.
But he does the same when it comes to racism, hmmm.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
[citation needed]
last time i checked, i was simply having a field day making fun of you when you express your disdain for politicizing climate as you cite a political scientists rush limbaugh protege.
the other link to the climate denial group that is funded by exxonmobil was pretty good too.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Hey man doesn't all that oregon power burn evil coal? You should move to a nuclear place, at least then your grow wont be changing the climate.
Your car, is it American made?
That boat that brought it over does not have a cat converter on it.
Your car, is it American made?
That boat that brought it over does not have a cat converter on it.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Funding for research on natural climate change pales in comparison to what our crooked government gives scientists looking for man made causation.
Exxon funding is miniscule.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
[citation still needed]
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You are a dumbass
It's immediately rendered suspicious because of its funders
No shit the findings would be consistent with keeping their business model going
That's not how science works
Even if every single dollar came from government funding (it doesn't), the research is sound and the findings are unanimously conclusive, having nothing at all to do with the government.
Science is not like journalism, it's not like politics, there is a strict process that has to be followed and if its deviated by one step, the entire experiment and results are trash. In science, the only thing that matters is the truth, you can bullshit all you want, science will get to the bottom of it eventually. You don't understand these things about how science works, that's why you come up with so many wrong answers when it comes to scientific questions.
You should stick to politics
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
omfg
The budget is what 3.8 trillion?
So out of that there is 30% discretionary spending, mandatory (food stamps, medicare ect) is 64% and 6% is interest.
Thats right interest.
So 30% of 3.8 trillion is 1.14 trillion.
3% of 1.14 trillion is about 34.2 billion.
So how do yall want to do this?
Arguably we should include all of energy and science@3% so that's the figure above.
Education? Shouldn't we throw some Transportation in there too?
How about some of that Science? Surely.
As always check my math, pretty sure a trillion is a thousand billion.
The budget is what 3.8 trillion?
So out of that there is 30% discretionary spending, mandatory (food stamps, medicare ect) is 64% and 6% is interest.
Thats right interest.
So 30% of 3.8 trillion is 1.14 trillion.
3% of 1.14 trillion is about 34.2 billion.
So how do yall want to do this?
Arguably we should include all of energy and science@3% so that's the figure above.
Education? Shouldn't we throw some Transportation in there too?
How about some of that Science? Surely.
As always check my math, pretty sure a trillion is a thousand billion.