By Elvis, using advanced technology he finally managed to operate thanks to advice by JFK up on the mothership they were both abducted to after escaping from that retirement home they've been hiding in.
You're using google.com.au - obviously "climategate" is not a popular search term amongst people who use google.com.au so it won't rank in as a suggestion - switch to google.com and it will.
If you type in the full term you are looking for then there is no point in it suggesting it, no? Try typing less of the word "climategate", go for "climate" or even "climategat" or anything that just isn't the full word you'd like it to suggest ...
I am referring to auto-complete. It's the very first suggestion if I type in "climate".
EDIT:
As an afterthought, to avoid the "OMG PHOTOSHOP" responses which are totally possible now that we've reached the paranoia event horizon, I've also added the data showing the JSON response from the page's AJAX request.
EDIT:
As an afterthought, to avoid the "OMG PHOTOSHOP" responses which are totally possible now that we've reached the paranoia event horizon, I've also added the data showing the JSON response from the page's AJAX request.
Last edited by xaotik, .
Uh... it's still working for me both in Firefox's google search and on google.com itself.
"Pontypool". The less said about it, the better. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Or to use their superior nuclear energy to power enormous fans pointed in your direction.
Woah there, Tex: dangerous generalisation spotted. You've just bagged a whole lot of branches of science and scientific research into a biodegradable disposal container because of a scandal in one institute in one country. The ecological strategy of countries doesn't revolve solely around climatology and surely climatology doesn't revolve around the CRU of the UAE of the DEFRA of the UK.
That's not a political goal - that's an economic goal at best.
Many of the ecotaxes are not just emission-based. However, being the way corporate logic works they are just dealt with as an extra cost and not an incentive to actually take a shot at devising a more sustainable (to use the trendy word for "not such a ****ed up mess") method of production.
Last edited by xaotik, .
What is this political goal? Where I come from a political goal is usually "get us re-elected" or the longer version "get our cronies rich and happy so we can get re-elected". What is theirs?
See, that doesn't cut it for an industry to be created. An industry has to have a product that is sold and if it is to survive it has to be bought. Therefore the phrase "climatology industry" has to hide that last bit somewhere. Is someone really profiting, economically, from all this? Is that someone profiting part of a political party or supporting one? Then you have a political goal and something you can refer to as industry as well.
If not, then you have to focus your efforts on finding the root of it and not plod around with generalized phrases and statements. Like this one:
I mean really: where on earth did that come from?
EDIT:
Since you replied while I was replying to the reply made to my reply, I gather it's an honest question. If so then ok - scratch that. I'll just stand to "find the root of it all" as my closing statement.
Surely you have to acknowledge the fact that there are many organizations out there that are setup either by a government or a government's department. That doesn't necessarily mean at all times that they are pursuing a political goal.
How does the UK climatology industry work and to what does it aim at? What is it that they are manufacturing (either tangible or intangible) that is worth all this?
Why do you assign it a "politicised" attribute? What makes it so?
Last edited by xaotik, .
Hold on. The CRU calls itself a part of the UEA. So, this nefarious political organisation in question is? The government?
I think when people say that they sort of mean the general environmentalist trend and the products/services (which they often cannot afford) that revolve around it and not so much "climatology" as the study of climate being an industry. Sticking to my previous "oh woe is us in the age of pricetags" theme I think I can understand how peopl confuse the two - many branches of science seem to get intertwined immediately with the consumer products that result from their study.
That you'd do such a thing? Damn straight it does.
Over a certain percentage it is a pollutant because it's going to be detrimental to the process of photosynthesis which will indeed consume a certain amount of CO2. Also, the creation process of said CO2 by various means usually creates further complications to the system by either modifying other variables or introducing new ones.
Last edited by xaotik, .
All this because it was in a .zip file?
By Vishnu, I wish they had put schematics of the WTC in that so we could at least get a Zeitgeist reference rolling.
Who's to say that those scientists didn't visit the futerra site on their own? Who's to say that there was also pornographic material on the UEA CRU computers that wasn't included in the .zip file? Of all the things lifted off of those computers, I think this .pdf is easily the most pointless thing to point out.
"Thinking" is not "believing" - if people think about the possibility of humans affecting climatic change then they are not automatically believing it. You assailed the option of thinking. However now that I type that out it does seem fitting.
I'm venturing a guess that it results in the same level of ignorance as to not contemplating that humans could change the climate.
On a more serious note: we'll have to buy Shotglass a new S2 license so he can be renamed to Roach now that his dope smoking hippiness has been exposed.
In an age and culture that everything has a value based on a price tag if there is a chance for new markets to emerge then old and new players will squabble over first dibs. So it's most probable that you'll have an equal amount of fanatic pro- and anti- divine poultry propulsion advocates ambling about shouting while unknowingly being lead by highly trained marketing demagogues. And since there's 6.7Gpeople around that's an awfully big mess.
It's not aimed at scientists, it's a handbook outline for employees of the UK Department for Environment's marketing department (they'll call it "Communication Group" or something stupid like that).
And it's nothing new as a principle or approach: one of my clients is the local state-run waste disposal service and they had quite a similar approach when they first got their recycling plant up and running, they had communications experts find a way of getting people to actually think about recycling and had similar .pdf circulating around their staff.
Perfect the self-sustainable loop thus reducing greenhouse emissions?
Indeed it is, however posting it in a sensationalist way as you did sort of made it appear like it was some sort of top secret indoctrination document.
That was "released by the mole"? What bullshit. Here, apparently the mole has his own website with all the happy-green-marketing crap online in one handy page:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/revolution/leading_thinking
Last edited by xaotik, .
Reason : conspirascope tweaking
Please Hold
Makes for annoyingly geeky intros too:
"Hi, we're ... Please Hold ... *extended pause with an annoying loop playing* ... thank you."
As long as no one in the crowd has suffered that day in the hands of a tech support droid you should be safe.
This is pretty much common in other forums. I'm not too partial to it as it just adds extra elements that take up space, unless it could be limited to say one or two embeds per post it's pretty open to being an annoyance generator. Links to youtube videos are good for several reasons: you get a choice, you can open it in another window/tab right away, their title gets stored in browser history so you can recall them pretty quickly instead of "oh where was that thing in that thread that someone said ... something .... 
".
".Unless a strictly regulated market is enforced then there can be no claim of "interference" - there is always someone interfering if there is no one controlling it because it's an inherent property of the system.
Once again: I still fail to see what's so special about that that's got you all excited...
Well of course some people will see it coming or see opportunities arising and some won't - if everyone saw and acted upon the same things in the same way it wouldn't be the so-called "free market" and it wouldn't be capitalism because there wouldn't be need for such. A big part of the current system depends on someone getting screwed.
I still fail to see what's so special about that that's got you all excited...
Perhaps because that's all Peter Schiff predicts and has predicted. Always - on a loop - he never stops saying "economic crisis", statistically speaking it was highly probable that he'd finally get his prediction.
If you look at newspaper articles from the 19th or even 18th century you'll see Schiffalikes all over saying "economic crisis". The western world has been in a permanent "economic crisis" whenever there's nothing else to deal with. Even Dostoyevski's characters make fun of that in his books.
I like the "Research Center For Sale" sign in the header. Will they stick to their theories and exchange it for cheese?
Not entirely true. Mechanics of living organisms that rely on constant (greedy) consumption usually have (or perhaps evolve, who knows) a countering/balancing mechanism internally or have an antagonizing organism which keeps them in check - otherwise they usually face extinction.
Last edited by xaotik, .
And that's when the Consumer Elemental whisks in and numbs everyone down with it's Spontaneous Purchase area effect spell and waving a Bag of Shiny Things around.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG