Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I hear the blueprints are in Turkey on Mt Ararat.

Hmmm, reverse engineering a wooden vessel from biblical times that has not been preserved might be somewhat difficult...

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Hmmm, reverse engineering a wooden vessel from biblical times that has not been preserved might be somewhat difficult...

Actually the most difficult part is getting to the top of Mt Ararat. Turkey said no. It is off limits. Photos show there is something up there.

It is easy to see that Mount Ararat is in the
farthest eastern section of Turkey. Look on any
topographical map and you will see that area
adjacent to Armenia in the former USSR is the
highest elevation of the mountain range, and
that Mount Ararat is the highest point at 16,804 feet.



For the ARK to have landed on the 150th day in this
section of Turkey and NOT see any land, the only
possible place that this could have occured is on the
top of Mount Ararat itself, the highest point. Then,
as we learn from Genesis 8:5 for a period of 74 days
the waters *continued to recede allowing the tops of
the mountain *range to eventually be seen.

Much archeological evidence has been found at this
exact location with the most outstanding being the
wooden beams found by Ferdinand Guevarra in the 1950's,
and the photographs of the late Astronaut Jim Irwin,
(a moon walker) whose photograph of the body of the
ARK taken during a 1990 helicopter expedition to the
region should not be missed. This photograph was
presented in the documentary "The Incredible Discovery
of Noah's Ark.

Interesting findings and it alway facinated me when I was a kid. I'm guessing we will never know for sure.

[antikristuseke]

I am going to need to see a bit more evidence than that to concider it anything other than BS.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

I am going to need to see a bit more evidence than that to concider it anything other than BS.

Search the net antikristuseke. There is definitely something up there. Why no one is allowed to climb and investigate remains a mystery to me. Perhaps to not allow out it does in fact exist? We can only guess. But, yes, google the ark and Ararat. There is plenty of information on it. Been going on since the 50's or a bit earlier.



http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Bible/OT/Law/Genesis/NoahsArk/Quotes%20of%20Seeing%20Noah's%20Ark.htm




Intriging, no? Hiding the truth? Possible.

[antikristuseke]

From what little i have dug up by now, Mt. Ararat is climbable now when accompanied by Turkish travel guide and holding a climbing permit in Turkey, most of the time when it was off limits it was a militarized zone due to its location.

The satellite images and aerial photographs taken over the years do show an anomaly there, but it is believed to be glacial in nature.

Ofcourse there are other sites that claims with absolutely no evidence backing them up other than wishful thinking. But as I said, I only now started to look into this.

Edit: As for the photo you linked, it is too small for me to actually see much anything there.
Edit2: As the site is accessible now, would be nice if some ark hunters would go there and check it out for themselves. The burden of proof rests steadily on their shoulders.

[Stealth Hunter]

Not that such a small ship could even hold such a large number of animals anyway- let alone carry enough provisions to feed a family of 8 and the menagerie for 371 days. Furthermore, the story of Noah's Ark is simply a rip-off of the much more ancient Utnapishtim's Ark from Mesopotamian mythology.

Anyway, nobody has ever discovered a gigantic ancient ship on the mountain as it is. Or anything ancient and man-made for that matter.. There's plenty of religious nutters out there (Evangelicals especially) who claim validity for the stories of such men as William Todd, George Hagopian, etc. Strangely enough, there exists no videos on the Internet of Rolando Reyna's story. Or any documentation of a "Rolando Reyna of Mexico City, Mexico" as of the 1980s, 1990s, or present decade... you hear the story a lot but that's where the trail ends.

What the supporters of those stories are saying is no different from what the supporters of the conspiracy group which says that aliens have been living on the moon for centuries now, NASA has known about it for decades and is covering them up, and they're all going to set us free someday. No- that's not a joke by me. Watch this video series; there ARE people who really believe this concept to be true (and they're not Scientologists):



There's nothing up there but snow, rock, ice, possibly a glacier, some old frozen trees, and a track record of conspiracy theorists dating as far back as the 1700s, earlier if you want to get technical.

[SteamWake]

Al hits an inconvienent truth

In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.

"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/...aims-dont-add/

[NeonSamurai]

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Said it before many times, and going to say it once again.

Gore is a mouthpiece not a scientist, he doesn't really know what he is talking about. You want to understand the science, or criticize it, you look only to the science and the scientists behind it and ignore the mouthpieces.

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

The science is easily manipulated, just as in any major criminal case where you have two opposing scientific experts stating opposite views based on the same scientific evidence.

With the Global Warming issue, you need to look beyond the mouthpieces and the science as presented by both sides, and look for the real motive behind the issue.

Valid science is not easily manipulated, but people, particularly the general public are easily manipulated. You will always have two or more opposing scientific views as A) science is not perfect B) science is ever changing and evolving C) complete consensus never ever will exist among humans D) you will always find someone who disagrees, particularly if you offer them money to. Usually though they will each have their own different evidence in a lot of these arguments.

If the science was done correctly, motive is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant if the science was not done properly. If it wasn't done properly, it will show up in the science itself when properly reviewed, or retested. This is why I am waiting till the review is done before passing any judgment on the so called "climategate", as I have not see any significant evidence of any wrong doing.

The talking heads in this stuff is irrelevant, be it Limbaugh, Gore, or that climategate guy who sounds like his voice is going to break from all the extreme and fake emotion. These guys don't know squat, they are not scientists, they haven't read the reports, or if they have they don't really understand it (like the mistake Gore made). Never ever EVER base your own opinions on a subject based on what they say, as they are usually wrong, and heavily biased on the subject.

This is why I said look at the science itself and what the scientists have to say about it, and what areas are most supported by the greater scientific community. If most of the scientific community falls on a particular side, then the theory is highly credible (though never perfect).

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

Nope, just like it doesn't stop the mouthpieces on the other side of things either. They lie through their teeth, and spout all kinds of nonsense all the time, and make tons of mistakes too.



As a slight aside, I often wonder how many who involve themselves in these discussions actually have real scientific backgrounds and training (and I don't mean high school chemistry or physics). I suspect that only a handful of us have any formal training in scientific methodology and practice at a university level of education. I really get the strong impression that many do not have a thorough understanding of scientific method, as I often see a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding when it comes to scientific matters. I am curious to know how many actual scientists who are members here support each side. My impression is that most of the members who I know are/were scientists, and those that I suspect are scientists, mostly fall on the side of GW. But I could well be wrong too

Myself I am a scientist, though my area of expertise falls under the social sciences (I am however heavily trained in scientific/experimental methodology, and statistics).

I also wonder how many here would be actually willing and able to change their minds on a subject, or if their views are strictly faith/party based (and thus nigh unchangeable). For me to change my view on this subject, the scientific consensus on the subject would have to change to a new theory. Such as if human caused global warming was proven incorrect by stronger evidence or the weight of evidence shifted to a new better theory.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Cmon we both know Al is more than just a moutpiece hell he is their leading proponent and poster boy. A few lies and fabrications wont stop him.. no sir !

YOU TAKE THAT BACK! He used "Truth" in the title, and that proves it!

[AVGWarhawk]

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Apparently Al was misquoting more facts and figures at Copenhagen. You go Al. Just good back up for accusations of skewing figures.

Why was he there?
He's no longer represents USA officialy, or does he?
I find his presense there to be very confusing.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, Gore showed up like a rockstar. I think he is representing his wallet. Here is the blunder:

"These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr Wieslav Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years," The Times quoted Gore, as saying.
But Maslowski says that this was never a figure they agreed to.
"I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said.

Nice job Al! You go man!

http://business.rediff.com/report/20...en-blunder.htm