Hey Mark, I argue with the idea that scientist are fudging data to make money.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. He's a politician. I wouldn't argue against the idea that a politician fudges data to make money. After all, that's the functional definition of a modern day politician. Such a shame too; nice tennessee boy gone wrong. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 6:14 PM, markhsmit <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > It seems as though Al Gore will become the first global > warming billionaire. > > > > http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/ > > Need I say more? > > Mark > > On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:35:07 PM, "John Carl" <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "John Carl" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] SOM's defect comes home to roost > Date: December 3, 2009 5:35:07 PM PST > To: [email protected] > Platt, > > In such a big push for a certain view, I'm sure there is some money > involved. However, i don't believe the entire thing has been cooked up as a > money grab. There has to be another motive, conscious or unconscious. > > My hypothesis is that science saw an opportunity to test a theory and > couldn't resist. The THEORY of man-caused global warming could only be > tested by comparing temperature data after a reduction in CO2 and > scientists > were willing to fudge the data if it meant manipulating the populace into > giving climatologists the experimental matrix they desired. > > But from the news, it sounds like the scandal is not going away soon and > probes are in the works. > > What I do find encouraging is the confirmation of the morality of what I > term "the open source society." When all information is openly scrutinized, > such shenanigans aren't possible. I was glad to see an internet hacker > accomplish something good for a change. > > > John > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey John, > > > > About the money, I recommend to you an OpEd in the Dec. 1 Wall St. > > Journal entitled, "Climategate: Follow the Money" in which the author > > points out that the "European Commission's most recent appropriation > > for > > climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting > > funds from the EU's member governments." Many billions more for such > > research and related global-change interests is covered in the OpEd. > > > > Like you I'm looking forward to more evidence of scientific fraud being > > brought to light despite the best efforts of true believers to cover it > up. > > > > Platt > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Dec 2009 at 9:55, John Carl wrote: > > > > > Platt, > > > > > > The idea that climate scientist are doing this for money, I find... > um... > > > what's that word? Specious? Yeah, I think that's the word. > > > > > > I agree that it's immoral. Science, since it worships at the altar of > > > "objectivity" is committing a grave sin with unaknowledged subjective > > > desires driving it. But I don't think that money is the issue, anymore > > than > > > money is the reason why certain philosophers (Pirsig and Royce) are > > rejected > > > or suppressed. > > > > > > It's got to be more than mere money. It's power, status, prestige - > yes. > > > But something more too or why would so many scientists line up behind a > > > rather bizarre idea with no logical foundation? > > > > > > One day they all got together and said, "Hey! I bet we could make a > > whole > > > bunch of money and get Al Gore a Nobel prize, if we'd just fudge a > little > > > data and create a global warming scare." > > > > > > I don't think so. > > > > > > Its an interesting question tho. I'm looking forward to some of the > > > responses to questions that are being brought to light. Hopefully > > they'll > > > shed some light. Doubtful tho. Nothing is more clueless than > > unconscious > > > metaphysics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 7:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > Well said! Note how environmentalists plead for reasonableness while > > > > at the same time prominent climate scientists manipulate temperature > > > > data to support global warming and assure continuance of millions in > > > > climate-change funding. > > > > > > > > Platt > > > > > > > > On 1 Dec 2009 at 21:07, markhsmit wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Environmentalists v Capitalists? Hmm that is an interesting pair. > > > > > I suppose capitalists is used in a derogatory fashion by those > > > > > who went out and bought a computer to join in the forum. > > > > > > > > > > The problem that I have with some environmentalist is that they > think > > > > > they know the Truth. They are righteous and believe everyone > > > > > should believe the way they do otherwise they are less than human. > > > > > In this way, they try to control things the way they think is > right. > > I > > > > agree > > > > > with Platt, that sometimes it is nice to see that they are just as > > > > devious > > > > > and manipulative as the rest of the evil capitalists. It is this > > > > righteous > > > > > sense of morality that many environmentalists have that somehow > > > > > elevates them to a more religious level that is annoying. It is > > another > > > > > PC abuse. > > > > > > > > > > Capitalists try to live well as best they know. They are a little > > > > excessive > > > > > perhaps and their infatuation with wealth is a bit annoying as > well, > > but > > > > to > > > > > each his own. I am not going to force anyone to be a capitalist or > > > > > a spiritualist, tell or force them how to live. We are not going to > > be > > > > allowed > > > > > to buy plasma TVs in California now because of somebody's opinion. > > > > > What is that all about? Oh, saving the planet, but from what, our > > desire > > > > to live > > > > > as we want to? Couldn't have that, we are so stupid. > > > > > > > > > > We can no more control the fate of the planet than we can live > under > > > > > a dictatorship. It is all about control, not about concern. Best > > thing > > > > > that happened for environmentalism is the recession. The deeper > > > > > it goes, the more we save the planet. Best if the US just imploded. > > > > > Reasonable environmentalism? That is an oxymoron. > > > > > > > > > > IMHO > > > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
