Wait, what?This sounds even more odd now that it is committed to readable words...The Green Agenda™ has been busy cramming vast moneys into Solar and Wind energy like the now defunct Solyndra and Evergreen Solar and their solar panels, or wind turbines that are not only unreliable at best, but they appear to fail and collapse during high winds?!!! But because 'cold fusion' was 'debunked' by scientists who's interests seemed to lie in the billions of dollars needed to build hadron colliders, or recreate the extreme heat conditions that exist within the sun, cold fusion does not deserve a penny nor even so much as an honorable mention in the footnotes?
Oddly enough, nuclear power as a whole does not get an honorable mention in this Green Movement®. So the Green/Eco movement seemingly gets weirder, the more angles you look at, like some of the more famous M. C. Escher artwork. Granted with recent events in Fukushima I shall just be thankful that one gravy train chose not to fuel the other towards mutually assured meltdown... But again, another odd question: with hot fusion recently giving all Japanese people cancer for the next 20 years (or 30000, depending on your angle), and governments all over the world openly condemning this form of energy, those who've conspired to keep that gravy train running have not suddenly come up with a new 'cold fusion' idea that they mocked to death in the eighties and made damn sure they could not 'reliably' replicate... Why not?
We aren't living in a time when there's a problem to fix, so someone fixes it, because they have an idea. We are living in a time when any problem can amass giant wealth by consulting on how to prolong the problem under the guise of caring about the 'bigger picture issues'... In complete contrast to the way military decisions seem to be made, those are a bomb 1st apologize later methodology.
The Green/Eco/Kyoto movement is still worse than the sum of what I have already said here. These interesting failures to mention/fund, and odd choices of choosing to fund companies that bankrupted as soon as the check had cleared are not even the most scandalous revelations or allegations.
How does it get worse than choosing to throw money on a sinking ship while ignoring (or reinforcing) prior heinous acts of propagandized pseudo-science? By creating a global crisis based on the newly splintered eco-scientology™ science-like sub-genre that itself is based on pseudo-science and massaged (and sometimes purely fabricated) numbers.
Yep, Eco-Scientologists™ is exactly the word I am looking for here. They are like real Scientists because they've been to schools and 'stuff' and they have possibly worked in a laboratory (or was that lavatory, I sometimes get a bit confused) behaving like scientists. Except that These Eco-Scientologists™ realized that sometimes science doesn't tell the story they way they like it, so, just like religious propaganda, they make up some numbers, and even play with the numbers they don't like until they like them.
Climategate and Climategate 2.0The propagandists still have the biggest soapbox to stand on, and the skeptics have less resources to dedicate to unraveling the quarter million stolen emails, so you'd think the mainstream argument and the Eco-Knights would have already won this battle... But that doesn't appear to be the case when it's the side that has resorted to name calling...
Maybe the skeptics have used some of the contents of stolen email 'out of context'... Then again maybe the way some people choose to type their email gives little to no sense of context... I used to be responsible for re-evaluating anything my company's spam filters accidentally tagged as spam and I've got to say, I did occasionally get one that made no sense, and it was a non-spam email from an actual person who had typed it themselves. Honestly, it's the digital age here folks, digital words are cheaper than printed ones were so let's try to make sure that context is there before hitting send.
And maybe the skeptics tactics of stealing a quarter million emails is illegal, but would a FOIA request have done anything? Unlikely since much of the hype here is driven by the U.N.
So obviously there is this impasse:
Eco-Science either feels it's methods, methodology, and data crunching is some proprietary and patentable intellectual property that should never be seen by the public; OR; Eco-Science thinks the average Joe is too stupid to understand and compile the raw data.
The Green skeptics feel that not releasing the raw data means when we run our own trend-line graphs on the raw data, we would not get the results that they are trying to shock us with
Considering my last post I have already had my suspicions of the scientific community's self-serving interests for decades. Why would I feel differently about the relatively new field of Eco-Science?