[–] HaloIsLife 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

We were force fed the UN IPCC 2007 panel report in my engineering classes at University. I tried to discuss with peers, they all looked at me as if I was crazy. Our grade, was determined on our findings that the data is in support of climate change. You got better scores for compliance, not for true investigation into the data. Why are politicians given the final authority to make changes to these reports, line by line, and alter them completely? Because it was never about the science, but the agenda behind it. Guilt the whole globe into believing their life is killing the planet. But really the planet's climate is just changing as is cyclical, and we need to migrate accordingly, fast. But no, let's force 3rd world nations to afford tech's that aren't in their budget, whilst they are going to be below sea level before the investment ever pays off. If not they'll be lucky enough to starve to death with their "clean energy" because too much of the globes farmland is now infertile, and we could have prepared, but aren't. Fukushima killing 1/3 of the globe's food supply isn't going to help either. Wow I sound like a dark soul, but the sad part is it's all too real.


[–] logos_ethos 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

let's force 3rd world nations to afford tech's that aren't in their budget

Most of the money will not go there. These countries have no accountability, so the money will go right into the hands of corrupt politicians. I expect that the UN will be directly or indirectly involved in choosing the people that end up with the money.


[–] CentrunAtoZ 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Apparently Israel is in a good spot for survival, the promised land.


[–] wolfsktaag 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

if they can keep it. the condition of their soldiers deteriorates every year, and they dont have massive air supremacy that they had back in the 60s/70s that allowed them to take on multiple countries at once and whoop ass


[–] LisaScienceQueen 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

So what does this mean? Will this reveal global warming is BS?


[–] Gorillion 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yeah, we need this shit out of the way asap. If it was ever a legit concern, it's just a long con now.
And as it goes hand in hand with globalism, filling your conscientious white western democracy up
with races who don't give a single fuck about environmental concerns and will NEVER take a hit on
their gibs to "save the planet", it's moot anyway. Anything we start now will just get defunded once we're outvoted.

Also, this came up during the week. Kinda interesting. New concept to me:

No mention of Climate Change. Just focusing on Sun Spot observations and records.
Could be the next angle they're taking, or something more legit.

Particularly as it's focused on the effects on commodities if this trend continues.
No mention of tree hugging shit. Just "this could happen, use it to inform your
choice of residence and investment for the next 20 years".


[–] imback 2 points 5 points (+7|-2) ago 

This is amazing. Not tired of winning yet. Global warming hoaxers BTFO!


[–] draaaak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I've been waiting a long time for Climategate 3.0 to drop. Finally.


[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well that's pretty huge. Can't wait to see what shows up.


[–] cthulian_axioms 5 points 1 point (+6|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Disclaimer: As a an aspiring student of all sciences, I think it's likely that industrial greenhouse-gas emissions by humans are indeed changing the Earth's climate in measurable but--as of this point--still very mysterious ways that we do not fucking fully understand. This is the objective of science, that we ought to learn and understand more about the nature of things, no?

Public research institutions owe a duty to the people they serve, and this is to conduct their research honestly and transparently. If nothing else, it's public money they are spending; and any expenditure of public money must be itself public. I would argue that it should all be public domain, but that's a rant for another day.

Anyway, when a university says "no, we will not give you these records", that's some fishy-ass shit from the get-go. The people asking for the records have a right to know why the public organization cannot produce them. Would it be a terrible burden to do so? Where are they stored? Are they on the Moon? Are they in a remote temple 180 miles north of Kathmandu, where you must traverse the mountains which are aswarm with Sherpas waiting to kill you for seven days before reaching it?

No, these things reside on a fucking backup drive in a particular storage locker in some ugly prefab building on a remote corner of their campus. It would not be difficult for a competent person to obtain and produce them. It could be done in an hour. A half hour if it's on a NAS that can be accessed remotely. Then you fucking email records.tar.gz to admin@ciacchiadocciolaw.com and boom, duty fulfilled

Well, the question then becomes, what the fuck are you afraid of, that you will fight and fight and fight and fight and delay and fight and delay and delay and fight and bite, fight fight fight, bite bite bite ♬ your lawyer is very sloooooooow ♬

for four fucking years

so as not to be forced to produce the records

What in the fuck did they say?

Like those elitist shitbags like to say to us, "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about". That shit cuts both ways, motherfucker. What the fuck have they got to hide?

They probably did some sneaky shit which, were it haven-be to come to light, will further discredit science and learning generally and undermine public trust in those things. Fuck liars. Fuck scientists who falsify their data in a thirst for funding, like those twats from U of East Anglia. Fuck them, and everyone like them, with a junked-up 12' streetlamp pole.

And as for anybody else similarly inclined: Conduct your fucking research honestly, ya fucking lying-ass, licking-ass cucks!! You're giving the rest of us a bad name!