Re: Software developer looks at CRU code

["Ivan ." <ivanhec () gmail com>]

watch the video, but the Al of the Gore bit is at 1.40 in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists () tx rr com>wrote:

> --On Monday, November 30, 2009 6:13 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik
> <quanticle () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > Right, but you said that the global warming folks are asking for
> > unnecessary spending of *trillions*.  Where would those trillions go?
>
> Apparently you haven't read the proposals to deal with global warming.  An
> MIT study found the cost of complying with one proposed energy sector bill
> designed to deal with global warming would be $4500 annually per family of
> four.  The EPA analyzed the bill and estimated its cost at 500 billion
> dollars by the year 2030.  And that's just for the US.  And just one
> suggested "solution" to the so-called problem.
>
> > I don't see Al Gore becoming richer than Bill Gates off carbon credits.
>
> So unless Al Gore makes more than Bill Gates he's not motivated to
> proselytize for global warming?  He's already made millions of dollars off
> the scam, but I suppose his motivations were of the purest form.
>
> > Neither do I see the UN gaining any more power via the IPCC.  If
> > anything, the existing climate treaty (i.e. the Kyoto protocol) has
> > completely sidestepped the UN.
>
> Anything that takes power away from local communities concentrates power in
> larger governmental entities.  By the same token, anything that takes power
> away from nations, concentrates power in a larger entity - in this case,
> the UN, which would supposedly administer fines for non-compliance, etc.,
> etc.
>
> > I guess what I'm troubled by is the fact that you seem to be stating that
> > there's some kind of deliberate malice on the part of those stating that
> > anthropogenic climate change is real.  I don't see malice.  I see a
> > fair amount of incompetence, but incompetence exists in every discipline.
>
> Have you read the emails that were exposed by the hackers?  The
> "scientists" have deliberately misled the public regarding the data,
> conspired to deny FOI requests (which may be a criminal offense), attempted
> to get the media to both ignore and denigrate the opposition and written
> programs designed to deliberately skew the data in their favor and hide
> unfavorable data.
>
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece>
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece>
>
> If that isn't malice, what is?
>
> Paul Schmehl
> As if it wasn't already obvious,
> my opinions are my own and not
> those of my employer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/