Posted by: graemebird | December 28, 2009

Towards “TRUE-SKEPTICS” Education/Two Science Scandals/Two Science Maffias.

From here on in this scandal must be known as CLIMATE-GATE MACH II. Thats the main title of this scandal. But it also has a subtitle. The subtitle is MONBIOT AND THE OUTER LEVEL OF PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Belligerent Scum-sucking liar “Deep Climate” is not letting me educate the kids on his site. But a young lady that I have run across elsewhere, who needs guidance from people older and wiser than herself, has posted a query and I thought I ought to help her out on this matter below. You know these left-wingers. They don’t want me talking to the girls. This is their greatest fear:

TrueSceptic // December 27, 2009 at 4:40 pm

Not only is DC stating the accepted facts, but the same claim was also one made in the original TGGWS.

Durkin removed this claim from all later versions of TGGWS when it was shown to be false. Why would he do that if there were any doubt?

Trueskeptic. Did you not read the quote? Did you not read it carefully? If you had followed this matter up you would have found that there is only one relevant study. Thats the 1991 study. Everyone on the skeptic side now knows this. Your side is so incredibly insular.

Whoever is making this claim, being attributed to the National Geographic Survey needed to go back to 1991 to make such an implausible claim.

This is the important part right here:

“This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. ”

This is a charade Trueskeptic. You know that this is not true. DC knows that this is not true. Monbiot knows that this is not true.

And there is no reason to think that a fellow with access to the USNGS website is the world authority. So this is a pantomime of ‘plausible deniability’ which is not the least bit plausible.

Now does anyone have a proper estimate based on something real? Because just because an outfit calls itself the United States National Geographic Survey does not mean that they’ve made a proper survey. And it doesn’t mean that they are basing the totally wrong claim on the website on the basis of any survey they may have done. They aren’t. By their own admission.

The fellow who gypped up the website is basing this nonsense on a 1991 paper when a lot of people may have still thought that the Pacific had the subduction zones to match the Altantics rift zones.

As an aside; its a massive scandal of Geology when they found out that this was not the case but still had to justify plate tectonics. To this day they cannot convincingly explain the massive extent of the rift zones and the relatively small amount of proven subduction zones. But this is another story.

In underwater rift-zones, in most of the places the volcanic activity is simply ceaseless. Its nothing like the above ground stuff. Its night and day. No comparison at all. The person on that website had to go back to 1991 to find someone who did not seem to realise this.

“This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.”

You know that this is not true Trueskeptic. Everyone here knows this is not true. Plausible deniability is not Ok. You might think its ok but it is not. Really its not. Lying by way of Plausible-Deniability like Tony Jones, Tim Lambert, George Monbiot, the fellow who runs the USGS website, and Deep Skeptic are doing….. this is unethical. And those who back away from this lie sooner rather than later will be remembered more mercifully when their severance pay comes up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

POST II FROM ELSEWHERE:

“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”

Well thats funny. Because I found a summary. And I found a list of Gerlachs different studies. And it was pretty clear that not any of Gerlach’s 1999 studies were relevant. So the 1999 date mentioned on the site is just a lie to cover for the fact that they had to go back to 1991 to pull this lie off. That they’ve got the date 1999 thrown in shows this is an orchestrated lie.

Now there is a bit of background to this. And more than one scientific scandal. The plate tectonics theory and the theory of continental drift gave everyone the impression that the Atlantic had been growing. And since the Atlantic had been growing its floor will be young. Therefore it was believed that the Pacific floor would be old. And that there would be as much subduction zones going on to balance the spreading floor and volcanic rift-zones in the Atlantic.

Now here is the scandal. When they checked out the Pacific its floor was young too. And instead of finding much in the way of subduction zones they found thousands and thousands of kilometres of volcanic rift zones. Now this contradicts the extant theory of continental drift. This is a scandal as well. And this is yet another reason why its hard to get good information on this matter. Because now we have two science maffias covering things up. The man to ask about this matter is probably Louis Hissink. But he’s unlikely to contradict this basic outline.

Now I’m a bit hazy as to when everyone was apprised of these matters. But as you have seen, when there is a science scandal involved big holes start developing in internet information. And here there are two big scandals. But consider in the light of all this. The miscreant controlling the website at the USGS had to go back to 1991 to find a study which appears to be incredibly ignorant of the reality that most of us would know about now.

“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”

Yeah I saw a summary. And you know. I probably cannot prove it now. But I tell you it was no survey. They didn’t ask the American navy for a favour in this 1991 study. Most of the talk I saw was speculative statistics. And in light of the sheer magnitude of kilometer after kilometer of more or less constant activity that we now ought to know about …………….. the 1991 study could not be more ridiculous as to its conclusion if it were judged retrospectively in the light of what we now know. So this is almost definitely another Climategate.

All these leftists are practicing plausible deniability. And they ought to be taken down for doing so. If you look at Monbiots act before and after setting up Plimer, it fair reeks of plausible-deniability. We know what he is up to by the incredible pantomime of plausible deniability. I’ve been sending Monbiot emails saying that I’m onto his act and generally harassing him. So if Gerlach’s record has disappeared from the internet, thats enemy action right there.

POST III

This ought to be the study that backs Plimer up, and it may be the most recent serious relevant study.

Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874

The 1991 Gerlach study is of no use whatsoever. Not hassling Gerlach himself mind you. But its clear that the fraud side of the argument has just dragged Gerlach’s study out of mothballs to further their lies.

I’ve downloaded the Hillier study. And they are calling underwater volcanoes “seamounts”. They have managed to suss out an order of magnitude more of these seamounts then previously thought. That is to say more than 200 000.

And more speculatively they put forward an estimate of THREE MILLION OF THESE “SEAMOUNTS” of the size 100m or more. On top of this I think you’ve all seen those fairly flat riftzones that just spew out small amounts of the red hot stuff day and night.

So yeah there is massively more activity then anyone thought in 1991. The rort that Monbiot and the others are trying to pull off is just incredible. And Plimer was well within his rights to make an estimate based on the proxy of sedimentary rock chemistry.

Plimer making an estimate is no scandal as liars all around the world are now claiming. Rather its what we would call a single proxy estimate. Surely this is the sort of thing that Plimer has done for a living for half a century. Is making estimates now forbidden?

Where is the scandal in a single-proxy estimate? Its not going to be the revealed truth since you need three or more convergent proxies to get to the revealed truth. But these lunatics are calling it science fraud.

Its as if all their poxy estimates are official and all ours are criminal. We need to hit back hard at these lunatics. This is business. Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire. Think of how many people this movement has damaged professionally. Lest we forget.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

In other news, and probably thanks to the constant stream of emails I’ve been sending George Monbiot: The culprits behind CLIMATE-GATE PART II (MONBIOT AND THE OUTER LIMITS OF PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY) appear to have successfully removed for the moment, the relevant information on Timothy Gerlach from the internet. I wonder if they will put it back after realising that their behaviour based on panic has been discovered.

EXCELLENT WEBSITE ON THE UNDERWATER VOLCANO ISSUE:

http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

Advertisements

Responses

  1. I want to see if people all over the world start messing around with websites to cover up this scandal. If anyone comes across a relevant website you ought to copy the page and date it. And hold it somewhere for reference. Because the websites will change as the story progresses.

  2. This ought to be the study that backs Plimer up, and it may be the most recent serious relevant study.

    Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874

    The 1991 Gerlach study is of no use whatsoever. Not hassling Gerlach himself mind you. But its clear that the fraud side of the argument has just dragged Gerlach’s study out of mothballs to further their lies.

    I’ve downloaded the Hillier study. And they are calling underwater volcanoes “seamounts”. They have managed to suss out an order of magnitude more of these seamounts then previously thought. That is to say more than 200 000.

    And more speculatively they put forward an estimate of THREE MILLION OF THESE “SEAMOUNTS” of the size 100m or more. On top of this I think you’ve all seen those fairly flat riftzones that just spew out small amounts of the red hot stuff day and night.

    So yeah there is massively more activity then anyone thought in 1991. The rort that Monbiot and the others are trying to pull off is just incredible. And Plimer was well within his rights to make an estimate based on the proxy of sedimentary rock chemistry.

    Plimer making an estimate is no scandal as liars all around the world are now claiming. Rather its what we would call a single proxy estimate. Surely this is the sort of thing that Plimer has done for a living for half a century. Is making estimates now forbidden?

    Where is the scandal in a single-proxy estimate? Its not going to be the revealed truth since you need three or more convergent proxies to get to the revealed truth. But these lunatics are calling it science fraud.

    Its as if all their poxy estimates are official and all ours are criminal. We need to hit back hard at these lunatics. This is business. Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire. Think of how many people this movement has damaged professionally. Lest we forget.

  3. I thought I’d pass some of this news directly onto George:

    Subject: Hey Fuckface

    Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874

    Did you forget this one you fucking moron?

    Your plausible deniability act is breaking down you lying cuntox.

  4. Further communications with George Monbiot.

    Subject: Bad Move Motherfucker

    o your coterie was thrown into panic and managed to get all that information on Gerlach removed from the internet.

    Bad move motherfucker. People are already starting to notice. I won’t advise you and your homeys on whether to put it back or not. I’ll let you squirm over that one you lying defaming idiot.

  5. Over at Deltoid some dummy has come up with the Kerrick study.

    “@zoot and Devils Advocate: Just a little hint: Gerlach et al do not assume that there are equal numbers of submarine and subaerial volcanoes.
    Another starting point is here: http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000105.pdf
    Posted by: Marco | December 28, 2009 3:56 AM”

    But we already know that the Yellowstone region ON ITS OWN emits three times the amount of CO2 that Kerrick attributed for the planet entire.

    Somebody called Zoot (could be Lambert himself) just said to “take it up with the USGS”. This is the stock answer for the science fraud side of the argument.

  6. Incidentally. Jakerman is a Lambert sock-puppet.

  7. ARE YOU CONTESTING THIS MATTER?

  8. “Tim Lambert // December 28, 2009 at 5:48 am | Reply

    Alfred Nock is one of Bird’s sock puppets”

    This is Tim over at Deep Climate. Notice how the main prime movers in this massive science fraud are incredibly incestuous. They have all the same sycophants and they get about on eachothers blogs, usually travelling under other names.

    Tim seems to double and triple up his identity on his own blog. They likely go to each others blogs and they link studiously to eachother in an endless series of wild goose chases.

    So since three of these guys have been made fully aware that the Gerlach study is not the least bit relevant, and since the study itself has disappeared from the internet we can be pretty sure that they all know they are lying and yet they choose to filibuster on the lie.

    I assure all of you that Tim Lambert, Deep Climate and George Monbiot have been made fully aware of the irrelevancy of the Gerlach study. I’m made very sure of that. There is no way they can plead ignorance. Don’t expect them to correct their fraud anytime soon.

  9. I’m going on the working assumption that Birdlab is Tim Lambert.

    See how that goes.

  10. Look at this stupid slut:

    “You are misrepresenting that site.
    Of course, nearly all of the CO2 in the Carbon Cycle is of natural origin, but the overwhelming majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 has been the result of human activity, volcanic activity producing only minute quantities since then. This is about 38% of the current atmospheric total. This, in turn, is only about 1/2 of the CO2 we actually produce, the balance being absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere. If all of it stayed in the atmosphere, the figure would be much higher.
    Posted by: TrueSceptic | December 29, 2009 10:28 AM”

    This is criminal stupidity. Eli Rabbet is also lying and claiming that humans release 130 times as much CO2 as that released from Volcanoes.

    They simply lie about it. Doesn’t worry them in the least.

  11. hey Graeme I think you’ll like this one

    http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-are-modern-scientists-so-dull.html

    Question: why are so many leading modern scientists so dull and lacking in scientific ambition? Answer: because the science selection process ruthlessly weeds-out interesting and imaginative people. At each level in education, training and career progression there is a tendency to exclude smart and creative people by preferring Conscientious and Agreeable people. The progressive lengthening of scientific training and the reduced independence of career scientists have tended to deter vocational ‘revolutionary’ scientists in favour of industrious and socially adept individuals better suited to incremental ‘normal’ science. High general intelligence (IQ) is required for revolutionary science. But educational attainment depends on a combination of intelligence and the personality trait of Conscientiousness; and these attributes do not correlate closely. Therefore elite scientific institutions seeking potential revolutionary scientists need to use IQ tests as well as examination results to pick-out high IQ ‘under-achievers’. As well as high IQ, revolutionary science requires high creativity. Creativity is probably associated with moderately high levels of Eysenck’s personality trait of ‘Psychoticism’. Psychoticism combines qualities such as selfishness, independence from group norms, impulsivity and sensation-seeking; with a style of cognition that involves fluent, associative and rapid production of many ideas. But modern science selects for high Conscientiousness and high Agreeableness; therefore it enforces low Psychoticism and low creativity

    • Hey Soon. The girl is talking about us moving back into the middle of town. You get your ethics straightened out on a couple of issues so we can hang out. She’s talking about moving right close to one of the main train station. I’m pretty enthused with the idea. Like last time I was in town I was usually in pretty squalid digs. But this time it ought to be more civilised. I used to really dig it in town. I haven’t felt properly alive since. Let me ponder that last statement because it may not be fair or balanced. When I was in town I could pretend that I owned all the public goods. Like the State Library. Well I owned that. Including all the BBC Shakespeare complete versions. And that 50m pool under the Park. To me this swimming pool on the way to Kings Cross is excellence in town planning despite the criticism it got. Because you have the pool underground and it barely detracts from the parkland above. Well you know that swimming pool? I owned that swimming pool and merely had to pay a small stipend for its maintenance when I dropped by. Actually Tom Cruise used to train there. He was impressive. A very fit man. Very fit. He’d swim with flippers and power up and down there continuously. I wouldn’t say he’s a favourite actor but I’m impressed with him as someone who perhaps wasn’t fabulously gifted but really made something of his profession. Probably through hard work and dedication.

      Anyhow the girl used to say “My boyfriend” when I’d mention that Tom was training that day. And I would assail her with arguments as to why I was a better catch then Tom. He’s better looking then me I’d say. But my butterfly is better than his. He’s richer. But I do backstroke better than he does. And so forth. Fortunately there are four main strokes in swimming. And so I was able to best Tom Cruise on that basis. But you know what? The guy was so incredibly fit that, at the time, if it was long-distance freestyle with flippers there was a question mark as to whether I would necessarily prevail against the superstar.

      Well this all has to change. I’ve got to get closer to all my stuff. To my swimming pool. My libraries. My rail system. And all my other gear. Because matters have grown worse still. Given this fellows dedication and my lack of exercise, certainly since about 2003. Well he may be able to beat me even without the flippers.

      The other thing is its possible that if I’m in town and working night-shift I might be able to do some formal classes at the UTS or something. Haven’t thought a great deal about what I’d want to do.

  12. Thats about the best thing I’ve ever read. I do hope that you’ve had the good sense to post it on your site.

    Look I just had no idea that things had fallen away this horribly. I was blissfully unaware of the state of play in (say 2002). From listening to the ABC there was a few doubts in my mind about one or two issues. Like I said to myself “hey why cannot the big bang be a localised affair” since they had found out stars that appeared to them older than their estimate of the universe. Being idiots they did not realise this was a refutation of their hypothesis right there.

    Anyhow a few years after thinking this I was still listening to the ABC and a fellow had just got the nobel prize. And he said something like “we may have to realise that the big bang was probably a localised event”

    The point is not whether he’s right or wrong. The point is rather that he had waited until he got the Nobel prize before he felt he now had nothing to lose by putting forward a pretty straightforward and obvious hypothesis.

    And so there had been some niggling doubts. But I had no idea that science as such was in a state of terrible decay.

    This is why you see our best scientists, (in terms of their fealty to the scientific ethos), around are usually from the fringes of the Western World now.

    Plimer from Adelaide. Jennifer probably was brought up on outdoor plumbing. She probably fed her chooks and burnt her own rubbish. I think she is from the Territory. Bob Carter from North Queensland I think.

    In my view the best experimental scientist of the 20th century next to Tesla was from country NewZealand. And his nephew’s wife gave me piano lessons.

    Great work SOON. Now all you have to do is come on board with phasing out fractional reserve and you will be fully redeemed in mine eyes.

  13. “…since they had found out stars that appeared to them older than their estimate of the universe.”

    Actually easily explained.

    YES RATIONALISATION IS EASY. ITS JUST NOT SCIENTIFIC. JARRAH WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE BOGUS AND IMPOSSIBLE, DUALISTIC NOTION OF LIGHT BY VIRTUE OF TRYING TO SAY THAT THE LIGHT WAVES WEREN’T REAL WAVES. THEY ARE WAVES BUT SOMEHOW NOT WAVES. MY WORDING. JARRAH’S WAY OF SAYING THIS IS THAT LIGHT WAVES ARE NOT “MECHANICAL” WAVES. SO RATIONALISATION IS DEAD SIMPLE. SO MUCH SO THAT EVEN JARRAH IS CAPABLE OF IT. THATS THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IN SCIENCE NOW. RATIONALISATION IS EASY. ITS INHERENTLY EASY BUT ITS SOCIOLOGICALLY EASY IN THE CURRENT SCIENCE WORLD.

    TAKE THE IDEA OF THE SUNS ENERGY BEING GENERATED PREDOMINANTLY VIA FUSION. THIS IS WRONG. IT CANNOT BE RIGHT. REASON BEING THAT WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH THE SUNSPOTS INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE SUN IT IS DARK. WE CAN VISUALLY SEE THAT DEEPER INSIDE THE SUN IS COLDER THAT THE “SURFACE”. CONVERGENT WITH THAT WE SEE THAT THE SUNS CORONA IS FAR HOTTER THAN THE “SURFACE.” TEMPERATURE TELLS US UNEQUIVOCALLY ONE THING. PRETTY MUCH ONE THING ONLY. THATS THE DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT OF THERMAL ENERGY. HENCE THE SUNS ENERGY COMES PRIMARILY FROM THE OUTSIDE. THERE IS SIMPLY NO GAINSAYING THIS.

  14. “Actually easily explained.”

    Idiot was bluffing even on his own terms. No follow-up.

  15. “However I feel antagonistic towards stupidity and finance illiterates like you discussing complex issues with links to Rolling stone magazine.

    That’s really freaking stupid which is why I have no respect for you.”

    How this for a bluff from the idiot Cambria. Look how motivated he is to defend the Republic-scuttlers. The article true in every respect and a brilliant piece of journalism. He cannot even so much as contradict a single fact within it. And Cambria is ignorant of economic and financial theory. A dope.

    Is he challenging even so much as one fact in the article? No.

    So its all hot air and stupidity. And this very day Cambria put forward the immaculate conception of climate science evidence. Meaning he has no evidence for his view but has formed the view nonetheless.

    We are talking a real primitive here.

  16. The only primitive around here is you, Bird, for being such a Luddite fuckhead.

    NO YOU’VE SHOWN YOURSELF TO BE THE IDIOT HERE. STILL LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR HOMEYS GOLDMAN SACHS. BRAZEN CRIMINALS INVOLVED WITH THE SCUTTLING OF THE TREASURY. AND WHAT IS YOUR RATIONALISATION? WAS THE ARTICLE NO GOOD? NO IT WAS ACCURATE IN ALL RESPECTS. YOU DUMB IGNORANT ECONOMICS AND ETHICAL NITWIT. YOU TRY AND MAKE HAY ON THE VENUE OF PUBLICATION. THE CAMBRIA TWIST ON THE IDIOCY OF “PEER REVIEW”

    “SDFC:

    You’re wrong if you think I’m sceptical of AGW. However unlike the alarmiats I’m pretty comfortable sitting in what Tol describes as the bulge in scientific thinking, which is that AGW is a long term problem rather than an end-times religious cult.”

    WHILE YOU ARE HERE; WHERE THE FLYING FUCK IS THIS COMING FROM? LETS HAVE YOUR EVIDENCE FOR A LONG-TERM WARMING PROBLEM SPECIFICALLY DUE TO CO2. GIVE IT UP YOU DUMB WOP. YOU’VE BEEN RUNNING THIS LINE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I’VE BEEN ASKING YOU FOR EVIDENCE FOR THIS FOR A LONG TIME. YOU ARE STILL RUNNING THIS LINE. AND YOU’VE GOT NOTHING. YOU SEE YOU ARE A BLOCKHEAD.

  17. Notice that I haven’t been on your case much lately. This is because you posts have improved. Which makes you attempting to stick up for these criminals all the more galling. Now it might be that they weren’t that bad when you were over in the US. But certainly from about 2004 onwards, at the most generous estimate, they hit some sort of glide-path to large-scale criminality. This is more than clear.

    For one who considers the American Republic perhaps the greatest of human undertakings in at least a couple of millenium, then obviously I’m not going to be happy with someone sticking up for the Republics destroyers.

    Interesting post on urban agriculture. Not viable perhaps until a city becomes bankrupt. But then liquidation could facilitate such neat ideas because building costs could fall right down near to capitalised maintenancee costs in some extraordinary circumstances.

    Of course liquidation is another good thing your homeys are getting in the way of. I hope that fellow does well. It would make for a more secure situation if truly bankrupted cities went in for stuff like this.

  18. EVERYTIME YOU USE THAT PHRASE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, YOU ARE LYING. YOU USELESS, DISHONEST, LAZY SACK OF SHIT. IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF REASONED ARGUMENT, MAKE IT ON YOUR OWN HOOK. BECAUSE IT IS PATHETIC THE WAY YOU RUN BEHIND ONE IMBECILE AFTER ANOTHER, USING THIS SAME PHRASE AGAIN AND AGAIN. BUT IF I ASKED YOU TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT YOURSELF YOU WOULD NOT HAVE A FUCKING CLUE YOU STUPID PRIMITIVE WOP.

  19. Check this out. Philosopher Rafe gives a very good explanation as to why GDP is a useless metric for quarter to quarter comparisons. Not his words. But my implication.

    So what happens. The idiot Cambria, who has flat learning curves, and never wants to learn anything new completely co-opts Rafes argument. And deflects it. And buggers it. And the idiot Wop doesn’t learn anything new.

    If the fuckwit would just shut up and try and think through the implications, he would realise that GDP cannot be used as the metric for what its being used for. Something I’ve pointed out on Catallaxy several dozen times.

    So look at the dumb wop misconstruing Rafes point.

    RAFE SEZ:

    The GDP is a blunt instrument and so small changes mean very little. GPP is boosted by traffic congestion so people use more petrol getting to work. Driving with the handbrake on will boost GDP as well (more petrol consumption) plus the bonus when you have to repair it.
    Money wasted on school halls could be usefully spent elsewhere like nuclear power stations which will deliver benefits while the school halls become a maintenance problem. Great for the GDP but!

    CAMBRIA JUST NOT GETTING IT SEZ

    “I know Rafe, you’re right. When a normal government is running things the GDP is a decent rough and ready tool to use, as there isn’t as large a mis-allocation of resources through distorting economic policies as we have now.

    However when we have a thoroughly economically incompetent set of layabouts such as these bozos who peddle the idea the duplicate school halls is a boon to our productive capacity it always a good idea to look at other indicators.

    Good point.”

    You can take the man out of boot-nigger-land. But can you ever take the boot-nigger out of the man?

  20. “Still shitting yourself about government debt I see, relax its not a big issue. Net debt to peak at 15% of GDP, no need to panic.

    Crowding out? Only in a full employment economy. ”

    Make no mistake about this. There isn’t even a scintilla of truth in this sdfc idiocy. Not even a little bit. See what it achieves? The bad economists can cause unemployment, then claim that when there is this unemployment you can get something for nothing from even more stealing.

  21. one for you Mr. Bird. All the best for the new year

    http://www.scientificblogging.com/intelligent_potential/blog/end_time_0

  22. Lots of food for thought here too Graeme for your marvellous brain.

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n01/steven-shapin/the-darwin-show

  23. Thank you John H and Philomena.

  24. “By applying Occum’s Razor we quickly eliminate the time component simply because it is not needed. Energy does not need any help with its duties and neither does space. We can conceptually eliminate the time component simply because it is not detectable in any way shape or form. It simply does not exist.”

    Yeah exactly. There is no such thing as time. Time is a necessary concept. But it is a derived concept. Its derived from regular movement, memory, and simultaneity.

    Hence any theory that is built on the idea of time as some sort of real thing, is due for a reworking. Hence Einsteins versions of relativity are all due for the scrapheap.

  25. Here is one someone sent me on Greenhouse theory defying basic physics. My understanding is that greenhouse as a theory was basically disproved in 1909. Although I haven’t checked this out. I have my own way of explaining this matter which doesn’t defy anything we know.

    http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2010/01/german-physicists-trash-global-warming.html

  26. Hence any theory that is built on the idea of time as some sort of real thing, is due for a reworking. Hence Einsteins versions of relativity are all due for the scrapheap.

    Clever chap, got it in one. I sent this ref off to some friends and made a similiar remark re Einstein’s ideas about time. Time, like force, is an abstraction.

    PS, like yourself, always cynical about Big Bang Theory. In fact I say to friends that given they can’t even tell us the composition of the moon why on earth do they expect us to believe they can “travel that far back in time” to see the beginning of it all. In any event there is now lots of data that puts the Big Bang theory in the dock. But for people like you and myself we always knew there was something fishy about that.

  27. I’ve been talking about there being no such thing as time for awhile now. I’m not the least bit cynical about the big bang. I think its really disgraceful crap. I’m totally antagonistic towards it.

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/no-such-thing-as-time/

    If you were to put “no such thing as time” into the google you would probably get multiple entries. Except for the fact that such heresy tends to get ethnically cleansed.

    I call special relativity “the theory of velocity absolutism” and that in the google ought to give you multiple entries more relating to me.

  28. Look how stir crazy you send the so-called skeptic sheeple at Randi’s place:

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4320207

  29. Don’t like the sceptics, I prefer to regard them as people wedded to an imaginary scientific world view. No such thing, science is about particulars. Wasting your time Graeme, most people simply will not accept the non-existence of time. Your responders were all terribly wrong on one crucial point: there are a great many scientists who do not believe in time.

  30. Yeah. Like the warmers they just assume the consensus. Being gutless they wedge themselves to this allegedly consensus-doctrine, and then they arbitrarily stick the evidence-bar sky-high for the better stuff and down low for their stuff.

    Its like playing tennis with people who have a one-way high net, where you are supposed to lob everything over the net, but they can safely ignore the net altogether and just hit stuff straight back and low.

  31. ACTUALLY BIRDLAB, I SEEM TO BE QUITE INFLUENTIAL. OFTENTIMES PEOPLE DO SEEM TO COME AROUND TO MY IDEAS. THERE IS JUST NO WAY OF CLAIMING CREDIT FOR THIS STUFF. AND TO BE FAIR IN MOST CASES THEY MAY WELL HAVE COME AROUND TO THESE IDEAS INDEPENDENTLY.

  32. Looking at matters logically, one is likely to be more influential working from ones home computer than doing anything else. For one thing its better financial and time management then hiring a hall, and trying to get people to show up. Or then a great many other attempts to shed influence.

    Its just not a paying job is all.

  33. I’ll give you an example. Since I started abusing Monbiot for his fraudulent behaviour, while no-ones backed down on this Plimer matter. Still a bit of a chill has come down on people authoritatively citing the USGS as some sort of authority on volcanoes.

    The Deltoid thread and the Deep Climate thread haven’t been added to. And Neither of these two frauds have started another thread using the crap Gerlach study as their backup.

    Furthermore the relevant Gerlach study appears to have been abruptly taken off the internet, since they are running scared. So I rather think I probably had some influence.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: