Guest posts by Archeron

13

Politics / Exellent video

« on: January 04, 2010, 03:54:43 pm »

Afghanistan is Not the Right War (

&feature=youtube_gdata#ws)

very good.

14

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 16, 2009, 09:58:33 pm »

Please stop trolling this post.

15

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 16, 2009, 09:58:33 pm »

Let's see this, obliviously some poster didn't take the time to watch:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
Tabloid? no

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947
a scientific giving a power point presentation, Tabloid? no

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&ei=_DUUS_zuC9X_lQf95_ioDg&
Tabloid? no


Lord Christopher Monckton presentation
Tabloid? no

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
Tabloid? no

Leaked EPA scientific report early this year:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Tabloid? no


On the deniers.
Sadly if this is too subtle I'll explain  to you: it refer to ''Holocaust deniers''
Calling a climatologist a climate change denier is absurd since their field of research is to study climate change.

Climate change, global warming, catastrophic global warming due to human are 3 different things.

I did some research, dig allot - mean read the scientific papers itself- listen to scientists itself , read some part of the IPCC, came to a conclusion that the alarmists are wrong.
If you take the time time to read/listen to all this; then explain on what you disagree- the stuff that don't come from a tabloid source.

16

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 16, 2009, 09:58:33 pm »

If you want overwhelming numbers here you go:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

and my leaked EPA isn't there ; consensus haha. 

Most of the 100 points are explain in the documents posted before.

17

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:34 pm »

The emails in inf-self doesn't prove anything,  but when when Dr Jones was ask to disclose is data he refuse to do so.

Yes the medias use only a few email, it doesn't mean they are only ones we have to worries about.

The real  issue here is a media one, as a showed in my previous post the science, many years ago, wasn't settle, and still isn't.

And my 2 cent when they refer to the ''consensus'' is not about the 100 years predictions is about if or not the Co2 have a effect on the climate. Which pretty much every one agree it does; but their isn't a consensus about the magnitude of it.  Or they use a similar question. The media use it in a way as the science is settle on the predicions.

Now by acknowledging that the ''skeptics'' might  have some valid (scientific) questions/or opinion is a major shift.

The AWG (alarmists) are using the self proclaim ''consensus'' to push their agenda, since a while (not sure if this is correct English) I find the skeptics arguments more in line with the scientific method.
I know each time the consensus argument is push they are lying.


Look at his argumentation

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaG6U8z8z

For example do you hear the word ''denier" - which is not accidentally chosen,   or ''flat earth believers''
or people still belive that the moon landing was fake? All of them were use to describe the ''skeptics'' in a unscientific propaganda way.

18

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:32 pm »

Good question. First build a global warming file and meet your school teacher/director and explain your concern about the ''education'' they are providing to your son. Show them your finding and give them time to review it.

As for your son, how old he is?

Too young to understand propaganda or ''public relations'' which is the same thing?
I can give some interesting clues in modern time :
A key event in generating momentum for the first U.S. War on Iraq, "Operation Desert Storm" was a fraudulent report of the murder of Kuwaiti babies by Iraqi soldiers.
The famous non existent WMD and the bin Laden/Sadam connection for the iraq war part 2- even our (quebec, Canada) mainstream media didn't report those lies as it was in the U.S. If our mainstream media know it and report it, be sure every man in position to make decisions know it also.

19

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:31 pm »

Sight, this isn't a right/left wing issue, its a propaganda issue. Kyoto was in 1997.An Inconvenient Truth was in 2006- which at this time i thought humans were responsible for a upcoming climate crisis- and why i did so?.
Until i dig a bit into it. Doesn't take too long research to realise

1- no consensus about apocalyptic warming due to co2 in 50-100 years .
2-CO2 is not a pollutant
3-CO2 is not a climate driver
4-CO2 is not a major green house gas in our atmosphere
5- the biggest and by far green house gas is water vapor (somehow between 65% -low ipcc, to 95% high)
6- the hockey stick graph is a blatant fraud- ignoring the Medieval Warm Period- acknowledge by large and various scientific fields. 
The emails clearly show what everybody should already know about if the press had the slightest remain of objectivity. The AWG is as scientific as the eugenics was pre WW2.

 I'm not a telegraph usual reader, didn't even know its a right wing media like fox , but as my ''source'' i didn't only include this article. The authenticity of those emails are not in question and are all over the web. Ironically i red this article (a translated version) in what you'll call a left wing media - 
http://www.mondialisation.ca/
http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16334

20

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:31 pm »

Global warming ''consensus'' and you or how much propengenda we have now in the west.
Since English is not my first language and i dont have the writing skill some show in this forum i'll copy and paste article from the U.K. telegraph:



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka  CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

    Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

    “In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

    Next
    time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
    the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

    ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

    “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” -  CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium.  CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because  CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”

Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage of Climategate


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

21

Off-Topic Discussions / Global warming ''consensus'' and you

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:31 pm »

Dont believe everything in the mainstream media either. But i did study how the medias push the the AWG hypothesis since few pasts years. The fist blatant lie is the so called consensus: some old links:

February 27, 2007
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

dont know when it was done
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1326937617167558947

at least 2 years old from CBC ( canadian mainsteam media; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295&ei=_DUUS_zuC9X_lQf95_ioDg&q=doomsday+called+off#

*I'm form canada myself and this episode is NOT the average type of reporting on this subject.

Leaked EPA scientific report early this year:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

You can dig as much as you want, and compare your finding with what you read-listen from the mainstream journalists. This is a very good exemple of propengenda.

22

Card Ideas and Art / HERO CARDS by Scaredgirl

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:06 pm »

yes

23

Card Ideas and Art / HERO CARDS by Scaredgirl

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:06 pm »

I think adding dual color pillar is the best way to add some variability in the way decks are construct.

24

Card Ideas and Art / HERO CARDS by Scaredgirl

« on: December 15, 2009, 10:10:06 pm »

I think adding new cards is a good idea, but adding such powerful cards is  very hard to balance.
Some people complain about sundials being too strong (but i guess they didn't have much experience with the fake gods).
I'd like a creature able to cure poison, and maybe adding this feature in druid randoms mutation.
I think the power of new cards should be in line of what we already have.