What Do I Always Say About obamabots?

[Edgetho]

They lie.

Guys and gals.... They lie. And it's not just one or two or a few.... It's the whole enchilada, the whole movement. Everything they represent, everything they do....

They even admit it to themselves. All you gotta do is look for it

Peer-Reviewed Paper Encourages Global Warming Proponents To Lie To Further Their Cause…

Because the “science is settled,” or something.

Via Climate Depot:

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.

The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The paper was published on February 24, 2014.

The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

Anybody else shocked?

Yeah, right

 

[Coyote]

Moved to Environment

 

[flacaltenn]

They lie.

Guys and gals.... They lie. And it's not just one or two or a few.... It's the whole enchilada, the whole movement. Everything they represent, everything they do....

They even admit it to themselves. All you gotta do is look for it

Peer-Reviewed Paper Encourages Global Warming Proponents To Lie To Further Their Cause…

Because the “science is settled,” or something.

Via Climate Depot:

A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly providing a “rationale” for global warming proponents to engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.

The paper appears to support or provide a formula for why lying or “information manipulation” is able to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.” The authors use a mathematical formula to study information tactics.

The authors, Assistant Professors of Economics Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, note how the media and environmental groups “exaggerate” global warming and then the offer their paper to “provide a rationale for this tendency” to exaggerate for the good of the cause.

The paper was published on February 24, 2014.

The author’s boldly note in the abstract of the study that the “news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

“We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreements) which will eventually enhance global welfare.”

Anybody else shocked?

Yeah, right

Yeah.. Only problem here is that the Chinese Commies who WROTE this paper are just more honest about their deception than their "obamabot" counterparts.. They thank a China Govt Committee for GW in their abstract.. Their grant came from a govt that would LOVE to see the developed Westerners knock themselves out over GW.. Thanks Comrades !!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I read the link. Global Warming truthers.

But they produced absolutely no data at all. Not even one single little itty-bitty piece of data.

 

[mamooth]

In some fine irony, Edge here lied his ass off about the paper.

To be more clear, Edge is too stupid to even know he lied. He didn't even read the paper. He's just another brainwashed cult parrot who never reads any of the sources that his masters command him to get hysterical about. Edge was fed a a big heapin' helpin' of crap, snarfed it down greedily and then told everyone how yummy it was.

To be specific, the paper said nothing about climate scientists. It was a paper about the media and various enviro fringe groups. And it was _describing_ how those groups acted, not telling them how to act. To those who understand English, "provides a rationale" means it gives an explanation as to why certain groups acted a certain way.

Edge owes everyone an apology for being such a dishonest propagandist. But as I always say, ODSers like Edge are the whiniest liars on the planet. Edge is now going to prove that by refusing to walk back the big lie he just got caught in.

 

[flacaltenn]

The paper IS a discussion IN PRAISE of propaganda.. SPECIFICALLY as applied to the Climate Change debate.. Mamooth is correct that it has nothing to with the SCIENCE of GW, but it sure as hell DOES have to do with the "command and control" of the GW message. Only problem with the Edge Intro -- is that no ObamaBots were harmed in the creation of this work.. Only honest Chinese Govt worker bees..

These native Chinese speakers need to dumb it down so that the puddytwat can understand stuff like...

We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

"We find" --- being the output product of the paper.. Propaganda = Good...

 

[mamooth]

"We find" --- being the output product of the paper.. Propaganda = Good...

No. The authors are saying what they found the model output to be, and why that is seen as good by some environmental activist groups. Again, the authors are describing the justifications others use, not making justifications.

 

[Statistikhengst]

The paper IS a discussion IN PRAISE of propaganda.. SPECIFICALLY as applied to the Climate Change debate.. Mamooth is correct that it has nothing to with the SCIENCE of GW, but it sure as hell DOES have to do with the "command and control" of the GW message. Only problem with the Edge Intro -- is that no ObamaBots were harmed in the creation of this work.. Only honest Chinese Govt worker bees..

These native Chinese speakers need to dumb it down so that the puddytwat can understand stuff like...

We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

"We find" --- being the output product of the paper.. Propaganda = Good...

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

And you'll hold your breath until you turn blue!

We KNOW where the technique of lying is used - East Angola, the fraud of IPCC on the Himalayas, the lies of Michael Mann with the hockey stick fraud, the egregious fraud of James Hansen.

THIS paper, if you could grasp it, was praising the TECHNIQUE that the AGW frauds used. The researches have no need in going into detail of the fraud, this is well known by all sides. Instead, they were praising the prevarications by warmists as effective propaganda.

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Even for one lacking in education, yours is a remarkably stupid claim.

 

[mamooth]

We KNOW where the technique of lying is used - East Angola, the fraud of IPCC on the Himalayas, the lies of Michael Mann with the hockey stick fraud, the egregious fraud of James Hansen.

By telling so many lies of such magnitude, you too show how most deniers are shameless liars. Even after they get caught, as deniers have been caught in all of those lies, deniers never show remorse over lying. After all, their cult commanded it. Refusing to lie would get them kicked out of the cult, hence they lie.

THIS paper, if you could grasp it, was praising the TECHNIQUE that the AGW frauds used. The researches have no need in going into detail of the fraud, this is well known by all sides. Instead, they were praising the prevarications by warmists as effective propaganda.

Since I can read the paper, I know you're lying your ass off about the paper. It's what you do. It's all you do, and you are not sorry for it, not in the least. After all, status in your cult is determined by the degree and volume of the lies you tell on its behalf.

 

[JakeStarkey]

flacaltenn is a propagandist, albeit a lousy one, for the crazy side.

The far right is just as interested in asserting their 'framing' of the talking points as anyone else.

Talk about far right reactionary Alinksyism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"East Angola, the fraud of IPCC on the Himalayas, the lies of Michael Mann with the hockey stick fraud, the egregious fraud of James Hansen" similar to voting fraud, illegals who eat citizens' infants, women who use contraception are sluts, and so forth and so on and so stupid.

Grow up, folks.

 

[Statistikhengst]

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

And you'll hold your breath until you turn blue!

We KNOW where the technique of lying is used - East Angola, the fraud of IPCC on the Himalayas, the lies of Michael Mann with the hockey stick fraud, the egregious fraud of James Hansen.

THIS paper, if you could grasp it, was praising the TECHNIQUE that the AGW frauds used. The researches have no need in going into detail of the fraud, this is well known by all sides. Instead, they were praising the prevarications by warmists as effective propaganda.

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Even for one lacking in education, yours is a remarkably stupid claim.

How can you praise it without demonstrating examples of where it has been used?

lol.... weak sauce, weak sauce...

 

[flacaltenn]

The paper IS a discussion IN PRAISE of propaganda.. SPECIFICALLY as applied to the Climate Change debate.. Mamooth is correct that it has nothing to with the SCIENCE of GW, but it sure as hell DOES have to do with the "command and control" of the GW message. Only problem with the Edge Intro -- is that no ObamaBots were harmed in the creation of this work.. Only honest Chinese Govt worker bees..

These native Chinese speakers need to dumb it down so that the puddytwat can understand stuff like...

We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare.

"We find" --- being the output product of the paper.. Propaganda = Good...

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Any one reading this forum can come up with several examples from just the last couple months where the press or policy makers have mangled or misinterpreted studies to the advantage of the GW/CC argument. CBS tv news did a hysterical piece juast last year where they threw up a graphic of the ocean temp reaching 212 degrees, with all the equivalent warming energy... NOT 200 degrees, not 220 degrees, but exactly the boiling point of (fresh) water..

Also see this thread for an example from last week.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/346689-un-making-shit-up-again.html#post8828827 The examples are plentiful and legend. And if you have library access or 38 bucks, you could READ this turd and see if they listed their favorite GW lies..

 

[Statistikhengst]

The paper IS a discussion IN PRAISE of propaganda.. SPECIFICALLY as applied to the Climate Change debate.. Mamooth is correct that it has nothing to with the SCIENCE of GW, but it sure as hell DOES have to do with the "command and control" of the GW message. Only problem with the Edge Intro -- is that no ObamaBots were harmed in the creation of this work.. Only honest Chinese Govt worker bees..

These native Chinese speakers need to dumb it down so that the puddytwat can understand stuff like...

"We find" --- being the output product of the paper.. Propaganda = Good...

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Any one reading this forum can come up with several examples from just the last couple months where the press or policy makers have mangled or misinterpreted studies to the advantage of the GW/CC argument. CBS tv news did a hysterical piece juast last year where they threw up a graphic of the ocean temp reaching 212 degrees, with all the equivalent warming energy... NOT 200 degrees, not 220 degrees, but exactly the boiling point of (fresh) water..

Also see this thread for an example from last week.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/346689-un-making-shit-up-again.html#post8828827 The examples are plentiful and legend. And if you have library access or 38 bucks, you could READ this turd and see if they listed their favorite GW lies..

Still brings me back to the point: the study itself cites not one single example of a scientific study that uses deliberate methods to cook the books.

You know what we call that in my world? We call that lying.

Now, if a media outlet takes the data and sugar coats it, that should also be easy to identify and locate, because all you have to do is to compare the claim against the raw data and decide if it matches up. And it should be easy to make screen shots and publish books and vids over the so-called "errors", amirite?

Besides, GW is a under-rubrik within the entire theory of Climate Change - and then concensus there is 100% that our planet's climate is changing. Well, duh. It's always been changing. It's the rate at which it is now changing and what forces, if any, are causing it to change faster, that are a cause for concern among the vast majority of scientists.

So, to have any kind of truly productive conversation about this, we really need to be talking about climate change, not GW as one specific part.

 

[skookerasbil]

What matters only is who is winning >>>>


http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/313851-more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.html



3,000 posts worth!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn is a propagandist, albeit a lousy one, for the crazy side.

The far right is just as interested in asserting their 'framing' of the talking points as anyone else.

Talk about far right reactionary Alinksyism.

I was ON TOPIC.. YOU are just babbling Starkeyisms.. Care to point out any of those "talking points" that appeared in my head immaculately ???

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Any one reading this forum can come up with several examples from just the last couple months where the press or policy makers have mangled or misinterpreted studies to the advantage of the GW/CC argument. CBS tv news did a hysterical piece juast last year where they threw up a graphic of the ocean temp reaching 212 degrees, with all the equivalent warming energy... NOT 200 degrees, not 220 degrees, but exactly the boiling point of (fresh) water..

Also see this thread for an example from last week.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/346689-un-making-shit-up-again.html#post8828827 The examples are plentiful and legend. And if you have library access or 38 bucks, you could READ this turd and see if they listed their favorite GW lies..

Still brings me back to the point: the study itself cites not one single example of a scientific study that uses deliberate methods to cook the books.

You know what we call that in my world? We call that lying.

Now, if a media outlet takes the data and sugar coats it, that should also be easy to identify and locate, because all you have to do is to compare the claim against the raw data and decide if it matches up. And it should be easy to make screen shots and publish books and vids over the so-called "errors", amirite?

Besides, GW is a under-rubrik within the entire theory of Climate Change - and then concensus there is 100% that our planet's climate is changing. Well, duh. It's always been changing. It's the rate at which it is now changing and what forces, if any, are causing it to change faster, that are a cause for concern among the vast majority of scientists.

So, to have any kind of truly productive conversation about this, we really need to be talking about climate change, not GW as one specific part.

But we DONT KNOW that the paper doesn't cite examples --- because nobody here has shelled out the $38 for it... Do you have University privileges anywhere? You could log-in and read it for us.. I don't have the interest to read about scientific design of public perceptions from a bunch of Chinese Commies..

As for your distinction between the GW inflated claims and the observations on Climate Change. That has been discussed. And the hysteria about identifying CURRENT events as related to the 0.5degC change in your lifetime is entirely weak as it should be. The MEDIA and public policy makers HAVE inflated the scientific evidence of that linkage.. And the use of the Climate Change arguments are an extension of the VAGUE prognistications of the CO2 science.. But you are correct, the Earth has spent very little time in climate equilibrium since we rose from apes..

 

[Uncensored2008]

How can you praise it without demonstrating examples of where it has been used?

lol.... weak sauce, weak sauce...

How can I praise water as a means of diluting vinegar if I don't add a treatise on the chemical properties of water?

ROFL

This actually IS the best you've got, Statist.

 

[jc456]

And yet, not even one GW study was quoted where it could be proven that this "tactic" was being used. Not even one. Weak sauce. Weak, weak, weak!

That would be like a person putting out a study that says:

"All people who are green eyed have webbed toes"

And then not even putting one case of such out there. Not even one.

Any one reading this forum can come up with several examples from just the last couple months where the press or policy makers have mangled or misinterpreted studies to the advantage of the GW/CC argument. CBS tv news did a hysterical piece juast last year where they threw up a graphic of the ocean temp reaching 212 degrees, with all the equivalent warming energy... NOT 200 degrees, not 220 degrees, but exactly the boiling point of (fresh) water..

Also see this thread for an example from last week.. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/346689-un-making-shit-up-again.html#post8828827 The examples are plentiful and legend. And if you have library access or 38 bucks, you could READ this turd and see if they listed their favorite GW lies..

Still brings me back to the point: the study itself cites not one single example of a scientific study that uses deliberate methods to cook the books.

You know what we call that in my world? We call that lying.

Now, if a media outlet takes the data and sugar coats it, that should also be easy to identify and locate, because all you have to do is to compare the claim against the raw data and decide if it matches up. And it should be easy to make screen shots and publish books and vids over the so-called "errors", amirite?

Besides, GW is a under-rubrik within the entire theory of Climate Change - and then concensus there is 100% that our planet's climate is changing. Well, duh. It's always been changing. It's the rate at which it is now changing and what forces, if any, are causing it to change faster, that are a cause for concern among the vast majority of scientists.

So, to have any kind of truly productive conversation about this, we really need to be talking about climate change, not GW as one specific part.

vast majority? maybe that's lying.