Wrath of Dagon

The NASA thing is just how much the ice retreats during summer each year, not that it's permanently melted. I think there are some indications it's recovered a bit lately, though it's hard to tell which claims are more credible. In any case that doesn't prove there's global warming or that it's produced by human caused CO2. The only thing that "proved" that were the computer climate models, and they've been shown to have been manipulated, and don't predict current climate, which is what the der Spiegel link I posted is talking about. Another area of debate is whether ice in other places is increasing or decreasing. Until recently it's been thought Antartica is increasing, now may be it's decreasing in some places but not in others, and I think those results are preliminary anyway. I think this thing needs to get a lot less political before the scientific evidence is credible again.

To the extent they are melting, which is also not established, that would be local temperature fluctuations, not "global". The global temperature has been stable for over a decade. The problem is the so-called evidence for global warming is always being played up, while evidence to the contrary is suppressed, both by the biased scientists and their allies in the media.

It occurs to me perhaps we'll gain more by keeping the pervert out of the country the rest of his life than by making him serve 90 days or so in prison and then have him free to do whatever.

Temperatures fluctuating in different parts of the world is nothing unusual, it's always happened. The point is the actual temperatures are not following the alarmist climate models, on which the whole concept of "Global Warming" is predicated.

Desperately seeking Global Warming: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/...,662092,00.html Also the trick explained: http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/...e_the_fix_is_in

It looked like they refer to a guy that lets "junk science" get to peer review simply to promote debate. What exactly do they mean by "junk science?" Science that doesn't agree with their position.

Well, apparently the peer review process for Global Warming is controlled by a small cabal of like minded individuals, who conspired to get rid of anyone in position to challenge them. Several of the leaked e-mails are exactly on this subject. Which will themselves be dwarfed once the politicians get the ability to channel "envromentally friendly" subsidies to their friends. There's a huge business being set up around "Cap and Trade", and everyone who's politically connected is licking their chops in anticipation of the spoils. Something to do with adjusting the data I think, raw data has to be adjusted for other variables to be meanigful. Apparently the raw data which the CRU had claimed disappeared so they wouldn't have to release it has also been leaked, and is being examined now.

All of those. Most scientists are left leaning, and most environmentalists are like water melons, green outside, red on the inside. Edit: Scientific fraud helps also, as is the subject of this thread.

Well, in US we could actually do a lot and benefit economically by building nuclear power plants, but of course the environmentalists won't agree to that either. Edit: As far as who's getting paid, Al Gore for example made millions though his fear mongering and by using his influence to steer "green" projects to companies he owns.

May be ignorance is not the only reason?

CO2 is not necessarily a pollutant unless the theory that it causes harmful global warming is true.

@Purkake They prove that data is being cooked, dissent is suppressed, and normal scientific requirements, like releasing your data and methods are not being met.

Oh, OK, let's not discuss things you disagree with. Sorry for my impertinence.

This is pretty important, there are trillions of dollars about to be spent on this nonsense, I don't know why you think it doesn't deserve a thread.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-...ut-climategate/ Yes, I know it's a right wing web site, but they have links you can read for yourself.

What's eye opening is that you think Nuremberg was a witch hunt. And I don't see what False dichotomy has to do with anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht

I don't even understand what the hell you're arguing anymore. As far as what Hurlshot meant to say or didn't mean to say, I suggest you leave that question to him, he's just as capable of typing as you are.

What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.Neat. One of the sources he posted is biased, so clearly all three are biased AND what they are reporting must be FALSE. Uncanny logic. But here, let me dig up a more "respectable" source for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/1...ape-claim-block Mythical myths and innuendo, no doubt. What does it have to do with US soldiers guilty of crimes not being prosecuted as Kikkeli claimed? Also that case was about civil liability, criminal liability can not be replaced by arbitration, it would still be tried by a criminal court with jurisdiction.

The quote actually said SS was the primary perpetrators of the Holocaust, since this was a job specifically given to them. That does not absolve the Wehrmacht of their resposibility, as Hurlshot implied. OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht? Look, if you really want to make this argument, you could argue that the SS was a major arm of the Wehrmacht, and by the end of the war they were pretty much running the show. That might be a better way to go here. I'm not defending or attacking anything here, I'm just stating the difference between a front-line soldier engaged in combat with opposing military forces and the folks who ran death camps. My problem is with your implication that the front line soldier was somehow just an innocent bystander, instead of an active participant.

OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht?

The quote you produced from my link confirm my point exactly, Wehrmacht was responsible for countless war crimes throughout the war. The link also explains somewhere about how enthusiastic the German soldiers were about accepting and carrying out the nazi agenda. The fact that you failed to understand the meaning of Hurlshot's post in the context of his answering my post isn't my problem. Yes, anything you find on Google is irrefutable proof. May be you should try listening to a more objective media.

What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.

You have any evidence of that? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la...0,2956277.story http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellne...fend_gang_rape/ then there's the can of worms called Blackwater... Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article.

I did not misunderstand Hurlshot, he said "Honestly most historians target the SS as the main perpetrators of war crimes, so I'm not sure where you are going to go with this argument." clearly implying the Wehrmacht was not significantly responsible for war crimes, which is simply not true. You have any evidence of that?