climate change

[Ununionized]

Hiya igrowone. Can you think of any reason, -I mean one that won't leave everyone laughing - Obama would have his most

important business associate, the company he payed to publish his book about himself - tell the whole world he's from Kenya when he wasn't?

Are you thinking it's a vast conspiracy from the future, like The Minority Report? Fanatical operatives from a fiery future, when the sky magically

turned into a giant heater, went back in time and programmed Obama to tell the people he was paying to publish his book about himself,

he's from Kenya?

As a conspiracy against Obama,
people knowing he is from the United States,
went back in time, and made him tell people he's from Kenya, himself?

I mean you have a right to have your say. Everybody should be allowed to have their say.

You say fanatics with a time machine, went back to the past, and made Obama lie about being from Kenya,

knowing he would be embarrassed, and not be able to remember or explain, how operatives from the future,

had taken control of him in the past, and made him go around confessing he's from Kenya. When he's not.

Sure. Makes great sense. Or, he told everybody he's from Kenya because he's from Kenya.

In any case this is really about climate change.

And why the men who tell people the sky is a magical heater, can't tell which way a thermometer will go if you shine a light on it,

is what I came to tell you about as far as I know. It's been very interesting to hear your story about Obama being from wherever,

I didn't really know about that; I just thought I would check what you said, and see if there is really any evidence Obama might have been

going around in the past, telling people he is from Kenya. Like say the people he was paying, to publish his book about himself.

When the company he payed to publish his book about himself, wrote ''He's from Kenya'' they just made that shit up. That's your version.

Or operatives with a multi-dimensional transporter went back from the future, and made Obama tell people in the past, he is from Kenya.

When he isn't. To trip him up, far later in the future, so that people would not have strong belief in his healing powers of change. Maybe.

Or maybe Obama's just from Kenya.

I'll tell you one someone did tell me, about our president. They told me, he has a gold ring he wore since before he was married, that says

''There is but one GOD, and it is Allah'' in Arabic.

Did you know about operatives going back in time and making Obama wear a ring that has the conversion prayer to Islam written on it?

The Shahada?

Well I didn't know that either till just a couple of days ago.

And then, I didn't know till I met you, about operatives from the future, going back in time and making Obama

tell people he payed to publish his book about himself,

he's from Kenya
when he's not really.

It certainly explains Obama telling people he's from Kenya. Republican mind control from the future made him tell people he was, in the past.

When he really isn't from Kenya. Mind control operatives just wanted to go back into the past, and make him tell people he was.

Great got it: people with a time machine, from the future, went back and made the president, tell the people he payed to publish his book about himself, he is from Kenya, when - he isn't really, from Kenya.

And the sky is a magical heater: the core of the magical heater is the gasses whose existence create not one - but two separate, and unique

modes of cooling, for the earth.

Gotcha. Well I just wanted to share with you what I've learned about the scam and now you've let me know, you think mind control operatives from the future, went back into the past and made the president tell people he payed to publish a book about himself he's from Kenya: when he isn't.

That's a very interesting outlook you have. Mind control from the future, made Obama go back into the past, and tell people he was from Kenya:

when he wasn't really, from Kenya. He just told the people he payed, to publish his book about himself that, because of a vast, right wing conspiracy,

extending so far into the future, they were going to send HIM back into his OWN past, to falsely spread the word, that he was from Kenya. When he

wasn't.

I can see that 110%. That's also how efficient my wind powered solar fan is. It's green so - you know it's magic.

he isn't from Kenya.

 

[Ununionized]

Hey you know what? No matter how many times I tell myself that crazy sh**, I just think the guy is probably from Kenya, if he had people he payed to publish his book about himself, to tell everybody he's from Kenya.

 

[igrowone]

wasn't really interested in birther arguments one way or the other
serious researchers normally avoid being associated with positions that are considered 'out there'
it tends to discredit them as being serious researchers
instead, they appear to be nutters with access to the internet

 

[stoned-trout]

if maine ever starts having winters like san diego I am moving back....yeehaw

 

[igrowone]

if maine ever starts having winters like san diego I am moving back....yeehaw

this year, it's not far off
upstate NY is f'ing warm for this time of year
no hint of snow for a while, going to be our warmest winter ever if this keeps up
of course it's a lot of el nino at the moment, but i could get used to this

 

[50YardLine]

this year, it's not far off
upstate NY is f'ing warm for this time of year
no hint of snow for a while, going to be our warmest winter ever if this keeps up
of course it's a lot of el nino at the moment, but i could get used to this

lol, more hysteria. Warmest Winter Ever!!!!!

Not even close buddy. This is why people think the earth is heating, because people give their opinions about the weather. Here is the facts, about half way down there is a graph that shows current temps, and record temps. Not even close man.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/december-weather/349727

 

[50YardLine]

I don't know what is more fucking insane, a bunch of dudes who don't pay taxes paranoid about a carbon tax that has yet to be realized or a bunch of dudes that recreate environments who say that components in an environments do not have an effect on said environment.

Its one thing to be apathetic another to complain about something you are disenfranchised from in the first place.

Even if one didn't pay taxes themselves, they surely could still see the devastating effect trillions of dollars in taxes would do to an already fragile world economy. But you know, must be disenfranchised insane people right? Where did you get your psychology degree?

 

[trichrider]

Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change


Abstract

This paper examines the framings and identity work associated with professionals’ discursive construction of climate change science, their legitimation of themselves as experts on ‘the truth’, and their attitudes towards regulatory measures. Drawing from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists, we reconstruct their framings of the issue and knowledge claims to position themselves within their organizational and their professional institutions. In understanding the struggle over what constitutes and legitimizes expertise, we make apparent the heterogeneity of claims, legitimation strategies, and use of emotionality and metaphor. By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

Discussion and Conclusion

Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007). It is being hotly debated in the public and among scientists and economists, yet few articles study global warming or climate change from an organizational and management research perspective (Ansari, Gray, & Wijen, 2011; Goodall, 2008). Most research has focused on the contestation of GHG governance and management (Engels, 2006; Levy & Egan, 2003; Mackenzie, 2009; Okereke, 2007; Wittneben, 2008), while underestimating the still ongoing debate among experts over core assumptions. Although there seems to be consensus that anthropogenic climate change presents a profound global challenge, policy makers and companies have opposed the regulations of GHG emissions. As Levy and colleagues (e.g., Levy & Kolk, 2002; Levy & Rothenberg, 2002) argue, business responses particularly in North America have been substantively ineffective, barely exceeding reputational and brand management issues. For obvious reasons, fossil fuel industries’ stakes in this struggle are high and, not surprisingly, they are at the forefront of the opposition to carbon regulation (Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee, & Levy, 2009).

We agree with Hoffman (2011a, 2011b) that in order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics. However, given the polarized debate (Antonio & Brulle, 2011; Hamilton, 2010; McCright & Dunlop, 2011), gaining access to the reasoning of deniers and sceptics (Kemp, Milne, & Reay, 2010), let alone unraveling their framings, is far more difficult than analyzing supporters of regulatory measures (Hoffman, 2011a). This has motivated our research question: How do professional experts use frames to construct the reality of climate change, and themselves as experts, their credibility in making recommendations and decisions, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?

We examine the discursive contestation of climate change and associated expertise by professional engineers and geoscientists. We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly ‘dirty’ oil. In answering our research question, this article discusses both the construction of expertise in discursive battlefields and elucidates a more nuanced understanding of climate change frames. From this, we make several contributions.

First, our analysis contributes to the theoretical understanding of the internal bases of professional sublogics. Rather than consider professionals as being subject to exogeneous forces (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Meyer & Hammerschmid, 2006; Scott et al., 2000; Thornton, 2002) or to an expert vs. media debate (Boykoff, 2001; Carvalho, 2007; Olausson, 2009; Weingart et al., 2000), we examine the contestation within their profession and the endogenous heterogeneity. These professionals do not ascribe to a monolithic, homogeneous logic based on shared cultural-cognitive conceptions (per Knorr-Cetina, 1999) or values (Kahan et al., 2010). Nor is this merely a binary debate of whether climate change is ‘science or science fiction’. There are more nuanced intermediary frames that are constructed by these professionals. Indeed, by differing in their normalization and rationalization of nature, they vary in their identification with and defensiveness against others, and in their mobilization of action.

Second, our analysis contributes to the theoretical understanding of the discursive construction of expertise. While climate change poses an excellent example in terms of complexity of a problem and the need to form consensus, the type of expertise-based decisions we analyze is not unusual in organizations and policy-making. Ours is not simply a story of alternative frames; this is a contestation among those who wish to claim definitional authority. Expertise, as we have pointed out, relies on credibility and has to demonstrate ‘informedness’ and objectivity of judgment. The overwhelming majority of these professionals use these elements to construct their frames and ground the appropriateness of their judgments; nonetheless they come to very different viewpoints concerning the ‘problem’ and attitudes towards regulation and action. However, these professionals do not only engage in a dispute over the ‘cause’ or content of their claim, i.e., the appropriate definition of an issue or the adequacy of a proposed solution; they also engage in identity and boundary work – to varying degrees – to legitimate themselves as experts and de-legitimate opponents as non-experts, while establishing the cognitive authority of their version of science versus others’ non-science. Defense can result from different worldviews and from identity threats.

Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, non-governmental, and corporate organizations. Following Levy and Rothenberg’s (2002) examination of the automotive industry, we find that professional experts employed in the petroleum industry are more likely to be sceptical of the IPCC and of anthropogenic climate change. Given this, the defensive institutional work of these professionals to maintain existing institutions clearly exceeds the mere maintenance of ‘routines and rituals of their reproduction’ (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006, p. 234). Marquis and Lounsbury (2007) suggest that banking professionals are more able to resist due to their stronger professional identity; Jonsson (2009) finds that professional resistance differs across firms, depending upon the relative influence of professionals and the logics associated. Our research connects and extends these findings to understand how defensive institutional work is performed in response to insider-driven challenges. We find that the heterogeneity of professionals’ framings is a function of their degree of identification/mobilization with others (as suggested by Marquis & Lounsbury, 2007) but is also a function of their degree of defensiveness against others (as suggested by Maguire & Hardy, 2009), even other insiders. Further, these professionals’ framings are also linked to their position within their firm (as suggested by Jonsson, 2009), to their industry, and to the industry’s relevance for the region (Levy & Rothenberg, 2002). We discuss this in more detail below. Hence, our findings give greater granularity in understanding which professionals are more likely to resist, why and how they will resist, and who is more likely to be successful.

Fourth, we add to the body of empirical studies on the different framings of climate change and contribute to the understanding of the role of professions in the construction of climate change as a public policy issue. This debate has often been caricatured as being two-sided: believers versus sceptics. We confirm elements of claims and counter-claims as found by others (i.e., McCright & Dunlap, 2000) within our own framings to varying degrees. However, the use of counter-claims is not restricted to sceptics; nor do all counter-claims result in resistance to regulation. Despite several differences (e.g., percentage who believe climate change is happening, technical backgrounds of respondents, and methodology), our framings of climate change also align with those found in the US general population (Leiserowitz et al., 2008, 2010; Maibach et al., 2011).

With our findings, we provide additional insights into climate change resistance. Our study confirms that there are significant framing differences regarding the existence of anthropogenic climate change and the consequent calls for action or, equally often, inaction on the policy and organizational level (see Hulme, 2009), even within professional experts in one particular geographical context. The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue. By looking into the content of the frames, the discourse coalitions they enable, and the identity and boundary work they entail, our results provide more nuanced insights into the subtleties of institutional defense.

While ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents share the storyline privileged by the IPCC and regard scientific knowledge to be conclusive enough to support mandatory action, not even the second pro-regulation group (‘regulation activists’) joins their support for the international Protocol. In addition, ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents do not engage in mobilization and boundary work and do little to legitimate their position. This may seem surprising, but becomes more comprehensible when taking into consideration their strong belief that the fundamental debate on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is settled and that the ‘consensus among scientists’ has informed enforceable regulation. From such a perspective, it seems reasonable to avoid re-heating old conflict lines and being as inclusive as possible – our findings show that they emphasize fraternity and collaboration, and keep emotionality low. What they seem to have underestimated is that, even if the contestation may have been over on scientific terms, it was certainly not over on political grounds – as indicated by Canada’s recent decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol.

On the other hand, regulation contrarians form a discourse coalition despite different rationales underlying their scepticism. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics (‘nature is overwhelming’) link up with promoters of ‘economic responsibility’ who – irrespective of what actually causes climate change – oppose the high economic cost of interventions that, according to them, will negatively affect competitiveness and jeopardize progress in the Western world. Both downplay the environmental risks associated with climate change and, hence, deny the appropriateness of regulation and global agreements (Kahan et al., 2010). In addition, we found quite a large group of ‘fatalists’. Although they do not share the contrarians’ diagnosis or prognosis – for them, the issue is too complex and all knowledge we have is biased – they also do not believe in the efficacy of taking action. In this sense, through their fatalism and inaction, they benefit the non-regulationists and contribute to defense.

If the role of humans on climate change is negligible, regulation will have no more impact than non-regulation. Hence, while it is clear that their frame includes no pro-regulation action motivation, from the rationale provided, ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents could be indifferent in this respect. However, in framing contests between different expert groups, it is not only the ‘truth’ that is at stake, but also one’s status as expert. It would threaten the expert identity and undermine the positioning of this group in the future if regulators ‘listened’ to professional experts whose truth claims contradict their own. Thus, by opposing regulation, they are defending their expert status. Nonetheless, similar to ‘comply with Kyoto’ adherents, this group’s legitimation activity, boundary work, and action mobilization is low. The interpretation scheme inherent in their frame and the position of the adherents in the socio-economic field of our study offer several potential answers. They make a strong claim that climate science is fraudulent and believe that the debate is not settled and ‘good science’ will eventually overcome science fiction. Since all regulation is ineffective anyway, there is also no urgency. In addition, Table 4 shows that this group is clearly overrepresented in top management positions, especially in the oil and gas industry. Thus, they may see little need to legitimate their own framing and mobilize because they are in the command posts of their organizations anyway. Moreover, to downplay the impact of humankind on the environment in general is a quite ‘handy’ framing for top management of oil and gas corporations.

While ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents only see regulation to be useless, ‘economic responsibility’ proponents actively oppose regulation and mobilize against it. This is consistent with the prognosis and action rationale inherent in their frame. For them, the ‘cure is much worse than the disease’. Thus, not only is their position as expert threatened; what is in danger and in need of protection is not so much the environment as the economic development and interests that are put at stake by badly counseled politicians. This may explain why ‘economic responsibility’ adherents de-legitimate ‘them’, undermine their standing, and are much more emotional than other groups.

What are the potential implications of these findings for organizational and policy responses? In matters such as climate change, organizational decision-makers and policy-makers must turn to scientists and experts to justify their lines of action. We have shown that action is delayed not only by those who see interests they prioritize jeopardized and therefore actively engage in defensive institutional work; when action is required (either to decide new regulation or to implement existing regulation), inaction contributes to defense, and identity threats make opponents. Moreover, as is known from research in corporate political activities, with issues like this, variance in experts’ opinions is an effective strategy to undermine legislation and regulation (e.g., Bonardi & Keim, 2005). Thus, the mere existence of a lively contestation counts as an asset on the side of the regulation opponents and delays action. Moreover, as our analyses of the diagnostic, prognostic and motivational claims-making revealed, currently there are more effective discursive opportunities to engage in coalitions for regulation opponents (especially against the Kyoto Protocol) than for supporters.

What is more, the fact that we study experts who work as corporate representatives and/or policy advisors makes apparent the social and political dimensions of this framing controversy. The influence of individual experts on decision-making is dependent on their embeddedness within their organizations. On the one end of the influence spectrum, there are those experts who are in positions to impact organizational decision-making, either directly, via hierarchical position, or indirectly, via their position as advisors to decision-makers. On the other end, there are experts with little or no authority to make their insights binding or relevant for others. Although most experts are positioned somewhere in the middle, our results indicate that those who are more defensive occupy more senior organizational positions and are much closer to decision-making than activists. This can only partly be explained by adherents of defensive framings being older and more likely to be male compared to activists. More importantly, this entanglement of frames and identities with economic positions raises the question for future research whether these individuals adapt their frames as they move upwards in the hierarchy of industry’s organizations or whether a defensive attitude towards environmental regulation is a prerequisite to such a career. This evidently has an impact on organizational strategies to address climate change and may partly account for the reluctance to develop and implement adequate strategies. Given the impact of this industry on Alberta and the Canadian economy as a whole, it seems unlikely that the defensive institutional work by those in powerful positions within fossil fuel-related firms and industry associations can be breached in the near future without global enforcement mechanisms. And from a policy perspective, the continuing scientific disagreement regarding anthropogenic climate change together with the increasing weariness and fatigue about the subject on the part of the electorate is unlikely to increase policy-makers’ inclination to further regulate GHG emissions. The Canadian Government’s decision in December 2011 to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and avoid CAD 14 billion in penalties has shown this quite plainly.

Yet this dissension, declining public interest, and political intransigence may be immaterial. A potential, yet so far unused discursive opportunity to ‘broker’ between pro-regulation frames and ‘economic responsibility’ may lie in a more comprehensive (i.e., including financial) understanding of risk (Hoffman, 2011b). Nagel (2011) discusses how the insurance and reinsurance industry is supremely concerned about exposure to financial risks associated with extreme weather events. The US military is concerned about security risks associated with ‘population displacements, increased potential for failed states and terrorism, potential escalation of conflicts over resources’ (Nagel, 2011, p. 206). Risk management is of fundamental concern to all – including energy – companies, insurance and finance industries, military and other government agencies. Professional engineers and geoscientists (and lawyers, accountants, corporate officers, etc.) are in the business of managing risk. Indeed, engineers have recognized these risks, been working behind the scenes, and revised the Canadian Building Codes to adapt to the changing climate. As our analysis of the different storylines shows, reframing climate change as a risk to be managed – as has been promoted by the IPCC in their recent report (IPCC, 2011) – has the discursive potential to provide a bridge (Snow et al., 1986) to integrate various frames (except ‘fatalists’ who seem generally apathetic) and inject a legitimate diagnosis, established prognoses, identity scripts, and motivational consensus. Financial risks would resonate with ‘economic responsibility’ adherents, environmental risks with ‘comply with Kyoto’ and ‘regulation activists’, regulatory risks with all anti-regulationists, and risks of contamination could resonate with ‘nature is overwhelming’. By using a common enemy – risk – an interest-based discourse coalition (Gray & Stites, 2011; Hoffman, 2011b; Nagel, 2011) may be formed that has the potential to overcome the defensiveness. It would seem that ‘regulation activists’ (they have the highest action mobilization, recommending more actions than any other frame) could forward this. However, as Knox-Hayes and Levy (2011) point out for carbon disclosure, it remains open whether such a ‘win-win’ framing would also provide a viable business model to gain stabilization and, more fundamentally, what effect such a privileging of an economic rationality would have on the overall debate and the power positions of the various types of experts involved.

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

 

[50YardLine]

https://youtu.be/Lu-htSCxy0g

 

[igrowone]

lol, more hysteria. Warmest Winter Ever!!!!!

Not even close buddy. This is why people think the earth is heating, because people give their opinions about the weather. Here is the facts, about half way down there is a graph that shows current temps, and record temps. Not even close man.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/december-weather/349727

well, this is what i see over at www.ncdc.noaa.gov
november not in yet, but likely to be toasty
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-blended-mntp/201510.gif
October 2015 Blended Land and Sea Surface
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of recordkeeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

 

[Stoner4Life]

we're having an unusually warm winter here in northern MN, of course being as it's only the 2nd week of December we've got plenty of time to find ourselves in the -30 to -40°F shit that makes living up here worthwhile

I'm driving around here looking at green lawns yet.......

 

[Ununionized]

So you believe the government when they tell you there's a magic heater in the sky, but not

when they tell you

marijuana is like heroin

and worse for you than methamphetamine?

If ya like I can find you a bunch'a pages at ''DEA[dot]gov

that says medical marijuana is a joke. And that it's like heroin. And that it's worse for you than methamphetamine.

''Thuh GuBMuNT Seyz'' isn't science.

The FACT the government SAYS -is enough reason to be instantly skeptical until
provable
repeatable,
verifiable thermodynamic process is found throughout.

Washed meter readings by people caught admitting they are washing meter readings, is not science.

Even if the government tells you it's science.

Were you listening to them when they told you the first 75 years pot is heroin and worse than meth?

Why not?

Did you go check Phil Jones admission they were washing the meter readings to make them come up hotter, and hotter?

It's Phil's Words, the man who runs/ran the organization that sells NOAA it's data: they were washing data to make it appear hotter.

well, this is what i see over at www.ncdc.noaa.gov
november not in yet, but likely to be toasty

October 2015 Blended Land and Sea Surface
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of recordkeeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

''The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998.

Ok it HAS but it's only seven years of data, and it isn't statistically significant.''

This was in 2005 which the very same people you're listing above, said was hotter than 1998.

So we KNOW noaa[dot] gov lied in 1999 about the temperature .

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2000 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2001 about the temperatur

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2002 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2003 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2004 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2005 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied because we saw Phil Jones

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov NEVER WENT BACK AND CORRECTED,

but you're in here listing them like a pot war groupie lists the latest word from the D.E.A. that medical pot is a joke.

"WuhL... thuh gubmunt sed it so it MUST be TREW!''

Not really.

 

[igrowone]

So you believe the government when they tell you there's a magic heater in the sky, but not

when they tell you

marijuana is like heroin

and worse for you than methamphetamine?

If ya like I can find you a bunch'a pages at ''DEA[dot]gov

that says medical marijuana is a joke. And that it's like heroin. And that it's worse for you than methamphetamine.

''Thuh GuBMuNT Seyz'' isn't science.

The FACT the government SAYS -is enough reason to be instantly skeptical until
provable
repeatable,
verifiable thermodynamic process is found throughout.

Washed meter readings by people caught admitting they are washing meter readings, is not science.

Even if the government tells you it's science.

Were you listening to them when they told you the first 75 years pot is heroin and worse than meth?

Why not?

Did you go check Phil Jones admission they were washing the meter readings to make them come up hotter, and hotter?

It's Phil's Words, the man who runs/ran the organization that sells NOAA it's data: they were washing data to make it appear hotter.



''The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world cooled since 1998.

Ok it HAS but it's only seven years of data, and it isn't statistically significant.''

This was in 2005 which the very same people you're listing above, said was hotter than 1998.

So we KNOW noaa[dot] gov lied in 1999 about the temperature .

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2000 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2001 about the temperatur

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2002 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2003 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2004 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2005 about the temperature

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied because we saw Phil Jones

And we KNOW noaa[dot]gov NEVER WENT BACK AND CORRECTED,

but you're in here listing them like a pot war groupie lists the latest word from the D.E.A. that medical pot is a joke.

"WuhL... thuh gubmunt sed it so it MUST be TREW!''

Not really.

did it ever occur to you that global temps are a strange thing to lie about?
common sense should take over at some point
the DEA lies about weed because it makes sense to do so, it's their biggest money maker
errors in data are not an indicator that free masons, aliens, and Al Gore are trying to establish a world government

 

[Ununionized]

And for that matter since NOAA and ALL worldwide weather orgs

didn't go back and correct their numbers so they matched

the ADMITTED TRUTH

by the WORLD'S TEMPERATURE DATA STORAGE authority that THEY

were FAKING WARMING, by extension,

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2006 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2007 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2008 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2009 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2010 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2011 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2012 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2013 about the temperature

We KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2014 about the temperature

and, of course, since it's all built on the SAME FAKE WARMING as

ADMITTED by the MAN in CHARGE when HE and OTHERS were FAKING RECORDS

WE KNOW noaa[dot]gov lied in 2015 about the temperature.

So that leaves you here with a handful of information from the

''Pot is Like Heroin'' people in one hand,

and

''I Saw Phil Jones ADMIT It Hasn't Warmed For Decades in his own words but I'm going to still post this like it's real, anyway,''

in the other hand

you can see how people look at what you claim you believe is the Gospel according to Jimmy Swaggart himself,

and go... hmmm that looks just like a pot war groupie when he comes to people on a pot site, with information from the

''Medical Pot is a Joke and you're all Criminals'' people,

to tell us you know they admitted they're faking records with

abandon, but you don't care, the government said it,

so that's good enough for you, right there.

Well it's not good enough for everyone. You have the right to your say, but when you see the man in charge of faking records,

admit to the entire world he started faking them in 1998, and nobody ever goes back and corrects them,

those records are fake.

 

[Ununionized]

So what does it mean when people say, ''I don't care if it's lies, lies, lies, and the very people doing it admitted they were doing it, I plan to urge everyone to rule their civilization by those lies?

What it means is that you wind up with the very ''Pot is like Heroin'' movement

that had to have us all come here and discuss why fake science has ruined our lives.

Millions criminalized. Hundreds of Thousands imprisoned. Billions of peoples' monies stripped from them, and their children, and simply handed to government employees to buy THEIR
children things,
because people who know the truth about the pot thing are baaaAAAD peopLE!

They aren't main stream signtists like the ones with all this gobmunt reserche we got sayin

the devil weed made you crazy and that you're a danger to children so we're going to take

yours.

This is the kind of thing that comes from people like you, igrowone, promoting things you've had shown to you - that anybody with two brain cells knows is fake science.

That's why people won't give in when you start with the ''they're not mainstream like my friends who work for the government and in my magic gas movement church are.''

''The truths these pot people tell aren't worth anything. They also believe the government would lie about the science.''

On and on the droning zombies chant the government caint be wrong.

On and on those fighting fake scientific research by the government, released as real science,

have to slog through the sorrow and pain caused by those who won't simply stand up for the truth, BECAUSE it's the truth.

There's not a war on science by the scientists who tell you the science is faked, by the scientists admitting they're faking it,

It's a war on science by the people who consume it and create the market for more of it.

 

[Ununionized]

Your chants about ''cain't be wrong, cain't be wrong'' with dismally closed down intellectual process are noted.

You're in here claiming you wish people will listen to faked data that you had the opportunity to see, the main authority in charge of the faking admit - THEY'VE BEEN FAKING for YEARS,

and you can't for the LIFE of you figure out ANYTHING FISCAL

associated with emergency services and mitigation,

associated with insurance,

associated with scamming HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars via Soyndra (five hundred million vanished) and several of the other 'start-ups' at a quarter BILLION dollars apiece: gone

associated with steering energy markets,

associated with appliances that allege energy manipulation

associated with giant scams like the thousands of poorly thought out giant windmills at cost of BILLIONS

associated with LAND GRABS: making land more or less valuable through manipulating energy demands/costs -

you claim

''I cain't thank of.. WUN THANG that would MAYKE a PERSON say something that AIN'T TRUE about ENERGY markets.''

You sound like the original guy with a crew cut who decided to become a marijuana counselor for big bucks.

did it ever occur to you that global temps are a strange thing to lie about?
common sense should take over at some point
the DEA lies about weed because it makes sense to do so, it's their biggest money maker
errors in data are not an indicator that free masons, aliens, and Al Gore are trying to establish a world government

 

[Ununionized]

Igorwone you ARE aware - Al Gore is an OIL man - Right? You DO know - your hero is an OIL man.

His daddy left him stocks in Occidental OIL.

You do realize a ''war on coal'' and on "foreign oil'' means ''a war on Al Gore's competitors'' - right?

 

[igrowone]

Igorwone you ARE aware - Al Gore is an OIL man - Right? You DO know - your hero is an OIL man.

His daddy left him stocks in Occidental OIL.

You do realize a ''war on coal'' and on "foreign oil'' means ''a war on Al Gore's competitors'' - right?

you might be getting a little too caught up in this
in order for the chain of lies to make sense, a very large number of people need to be in on it
the numbers become implausible
all the universities have to be involved, and other foreign governments
i'm not saying the world will burn, just that the balance of evidence is that it is warming

 

[Ununionized]

The problem with your own story is it's identical to pot being like heroin. AND the people who FAKED the research, ADMITTED it.

The government is still doubling down on the ''pot is heroin'' fake science.

The two fake science by government movements are identical.

Hundreds of world level Academics agreed,

Scores of worldwide top level research universities agreed,

Dozens of foreign governments agreed,

Hundreds of Thousands of pages of 'rigorous research' agreed,

Hundreds of doctors and scientists who would know, and blow the whistle pot isn't really like heroin,

JUST in the REGULAR MEDICAL SYSTEM, obviously AGREED

or they would have SAID something and everyone would KNOW.

Main stream science isn't stupid, they'd know if pot isn't like heroin.

And your own logic is that pot might not be really deadly like heroin but if there wasn't some truth to the story about it being dangerous for people to use,

somebody in the mainstream scientific world would have blown the whistle.

Yeah sure, and republicans went back in time and made Obama tell the people publishing his book he is from Kenya, even though he's not.

you might be getting a little too caught up in this
in order for the chain of lies to make sense, a very large number of people need to be in on it
the numbers become implausible
all the universities have to be involved, and other foreign governments
i'm not saying the world will burn, just that the balance of evidence is that it is warming

And your opinion is based on ''there's no way all those people could be lying''

when you had someone show you the man in CHARGE of the LYING admit to the British Broadcast Corporation: WE'VE been LYING. it hasn't warmed for YEARS.

After private emails between he and friends were released by someone so disgusted they couldn't take any more of the LYING,
showed him laughingly admitting: I've been LYING. it hasn't warmed for YEARS.

And after you were shown that very individual engaging in a plot to have his official office issue FAKE SCIENCE press releases saying that it had been warming all those years

and the BBC reporter saying it HADN'T warmed since 1998 - wasn't really in the REAL ''mainstream science''
loop.

The very thing he admitted to the BBC is the RECORDS are FAKE.
He's been LYING for YEARS: it hasn't been WARMING.

He lost his job over that. He admitted what he did, so he didn't go to jail.

And you saw
the records not be gone back over

and repaired.

So the fakery is ongoing,
or they would have un-done those years
where Phil Jones admitted outright: They were lying.

That data IS fake. He and his friends, FAKED it.

 

[Ununionized]

And then, in 2010 February's BBC interview, he ADMITTED it.
After he admitted it the first time, when he admitted he was lying about it too.
When he admitted with his friends, he'd ruin the reputations of entire segments of society,

before he'd let the people paying him to tell them the TRUTH
find out about the FRAUD.