Four Modern “Scientific” Myths

[Guy Threepwood]

Blind faith is an emotional position which eschews reason and fact if they are contrary to their position, or merely say, "Is not!'

Yes, and I'd say that does certainly apply to faith that does not recognize itself. e,g, belief in global warming, or evolution, passionately held to be not belief at all, but immutable fact, where any other belief is by default 'denial of truth'

We all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs as such, we are open to new evidence, being wrong, changing our minds, respecting others beliefs etc. claiming 'undeniable fact' is where the problems usually start for any belief- do they not?

A universe that would look 6000 years old but was actually billions, would be a lie


If nothing else, my definition of God is Truth. And if you're saying that God caused the Big Bang, fine, as long as you accept that there is no evidence for or against the idea. I accept that absolute lack of knowledge, and can see why God would do such a thing (spawning creatures with free will). For us, the only difference between deism and atheism is hope.

we have the free will to be wrong, without which, finding truth would be meaningless right?

When we use our little bit of God given creativity to create our own worlds, those worlds begin with a premise, a back story, we set a stage. The main character in a novel being 45 years old, does not require us taking 45 years to write his life story first- as creators, we are not bound by the rules of our own creation. Our own will, the meaning that we wish to impart to our creation is what shapes it.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, and I'd say that does certainly apply to faith that does not recognize itself. e,g, belief in global warming, or evolution, passionately held to be not belief at all, but immutable fact, where any other belief is by default 'denial of truth'

We all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs as such, we are open to new evidence, being wrong, changing our minds, respecting others beliefs etc. claiming 'undeniable fact' is where the problems usually start for any belief- do they not?

Yes and I've had two life-altering changes of mind, one early in life when I left Christianity for doubt and deism; and in mid-life when I had my eyes opened to socialism and the media and left them for capitalism and libertarianism. The reason demanded by the first led to applying reason to the other. Now I know enough to recognize what I don't know, and what I do know.

we have the free will to be wrong, without which, finding truth would be meaningless right?

Free will isn't abut being wrong, it's about choosing to honor or not, the equal rights of all others to their life, liberty and property and self-defense. It follows that he root of all evil is a moral/legal double standard--not money, fame, sex, power etc. All other behavior choices only involve individual behavior, and which I term to be virtues. Those are subjective, and you can be wrong about those choices all the time..

 

[Nous]

What do you claim is erroneous about the Copenhagen Interpretation?

The same thing as Einstein, the Moon is still there even when we aren't looking at it.

In the first place, I find it somewhat tendentious to assert that one rejects any or all other QM interpretations in favor of one that is nothing more than an equivalent (re-)interpretation of the formalism. It's like someone refusing to drink water, insisting on drinking H2O instead. It doesn't add anything to our understanding of the world. There is no way to test whether the TI or CI is the "correct" interpretation.

In the second place, Rosenblum and Kuttner make a succinct and illuminating argument that there is no interpretation of quantum experiments that can eliminate the essential role of the “observer” or experimenter, wherein s/he chooses which property to measure. Using Henry Stapp's formulation of QM, they explain that every quantum measurement involves two choices:

The first is the choice by the observer of what experiment to do, that is, the choice of what question to ask of Nature. (Within the theory this involves the choice of basis.) The second choice Stapp identifies is that by Nature giving the probabilistic answer to the experimenter’s question, that is, providing a particular experimental outcome. For reasons dating back to the 1927 Solvay Conference, Stapp calls the choice by the observer the ‘‘Heisenberg choice’’ and that by Nature the ‘‘Dirac choice,’’ and we adopt this terminology. Taking the example of the two-slit experiment, the Heisenberg choice might be the decision by the experimenter to find out either through which slit each particle comes, or in which maxima of the interference pattern each lands. The Dirac choice by Nature would determine, in the first case, the particular slit, and for the second case, the particular maximum for each particle.​

I don't criticize Cramer or the TI in any way, but his interpretation--in which reduction of the state vector is accomplished by undetectable waves traveling forward and backward in time--doesn't actually change any of that. There is no way of getting around the fact that, unlike in the case of phenomena that can be adequately described by classical physics, “[d]ifferent quantum experiments that could be freely chosen by the observer do lead to inconsistent pictures of the prior physical reality.” The fact is unavoidable that the experimenter's choice of which property to measure is invariably correlated with the outcome of the experiment. I encourage everyone to read the excellent Rosenblum and Kuttner paper; it is highly clarifying, and has the added distinction of surely being the only paper on QM that quotes Isaac Bashevis Singer.

Thus, regardless of how one might construe the Copenhagen Interpretation, Stapp's formulation (which he calls the “orthodox interpretation”) does not imply that the moon doesn't exist unless and until someone looks at it. To interpret QM experiments in that way is to do exactly what Rosenblum and Kuttner warn against--it wrongly “transfers the measurement problem from the Heisenberg choice (the free choice by the Experimenter of the particular experiment) to the Dirac choice (the apparently random choice by Nature of which of the possibilities represented by the wavefunction becomes the single actuality seen by the observer).” We can consider Einstein's comment facetious. Schrodinger's cat isn't alive or dead because (and only if) someone looks in the box. The cat is alive or dead because the experimenter made his Heisenberg choice and Nature made its Dirac choice.

And the CI doesn't explain the double-slit experiment or the EPR Paradox.

Please explain in what way the Copenhagen Interpretation (and/or the Stapp's orthodox interpretation, if you consider them distinct) fails to explain these experiments and findings.

Why is it ever more sensible to assert an event is the product of undetectable waves, especially one traveling backward in time?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Thus, regardless of how one might construe the Copenhagen Interpretation, Stapp's formulation (which he calls the “orthodox interpretation”) does not imply that the moon doesn't exist unless and until someone looks at it.

Einstein saw it that way. Richard Feynman ("...who's lack of respect for string theorists and Copenhagen Interpretationists is summed up by his kindly suggestion: ‘Shut up and calculate!' "), saw it that way. Cramer sees it that way. Kastner sees it that way. Oh, and I see it that way, and I'm in damn good company.

To interpret QM experiments in that way is to do exactly what Rosenblum and Kuttner warn against--it wrongly “transfers the measurement problem from the Heisenberg choice (the free choice by the Experimenter of the particular experiment) to the Dirac choice (the apparently random choice by Nature of which of the possibilities represented by the wavefunction becomes the single actuality seen by the observer).” We can consider Einstein's comment facetious. Schrodinger's cat isn't alive or dead because (and only if) someone looks in the box. The cat is alive or dead because the experimenter made his Heisenberg choice and Nature made its Dirac choice.

How did quantum waveform actions ever ever collapse into reality before we came along to observe them? God observing them? If so, then we'd never get a chance to collapse them ourselves. I guess that would explain the Moon problem too.

Please explain in what way the Copenhagen Interpretation (and/or the Stapp's orthodox interpretation, if you consider them distinct) fails to explain these experiments and findings.

The burden falls on the proponent to show how the interpretation works. But I suspect that you know that or you would have asked me how TI explains it, or at least shown how CI explains it yourself.

Why is it ever more sensible to assert an event is the product of undetectable waves, especially one traveling backward in time?

Because that's the only way to explain experiments like the double-slit or the EPR paradox. And they don't occur backward and forward in time, they occur in a timeless environment, which we can think of as existence "outside" the fabric of our 4-D universe, or "Quantumland".

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, never let a crisis go to waste, and Truth is irrelevant to our agenda.

What exactly do you think this "agenda" is, and where is your actual evidence that it exists?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What exactly do you think this "agenda" is, and where is your actual evidence that it exists?

You obviously like to goad people into repeating themselves as a red hearing distraction from, in this case, the climategates facts.

 

[Jose Fly]

You obviously like to goad people into repeating themselves as a red hearing distraction from, in this case, the climategates facts.

You made the claim that climatologists are implementing some sort of "agenda". I'm asking you to state what that agenda is, and provide evidence of its existence.

Either you can do that or you can't.

 

[Nous]

Thus, regardless of how one might construe the Copenhagen Interpretation, Stapp's formulation (which he calls the “orthodox interpretation”) does not imply that the moon doesn't exist unless and until someone looks at it.

Einstein saw it that way.

Einstein's ideas on QM were wrong, as demonstrated by the outcomes of numerous experiments testing Bell or CHSH inequalities--there are no local hidden variables to save us from “spooky action at a distance”. Moreover, as the EPR paper shows, what Einstein objected to was not one interpretation of QM in favor of another, but was the theory itself, specifically with respect to the issue of the wave function being a complete description of “the elements of physical reality” prior to collapse.

It's unfortunate that Einstein didn't live to see the experiments demonstrating the non-local nature of reality. I believe he would have happily embraced these findings and the further developments of the theory. His mind would have been blown by the prospect of quantum computers where entanglement is harnessed and qubits exist in a state of superposition.

The other physicists you've named didn't express any rejection of QM or of any particular interpretation in favor of another. You shouldn't misrepresent what people have actually said.

Moreover, again, you haven't shown that any interpretation of QM is erroneous, or that the TI is somehow the correct interpretation. The TI doesn't change the fact that in, e.g., Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment, the outcome--of either single particles being detected in a single detector, or an interference pattern--is always perfectly correlated with the experimenter's prior choice.

How did quantum waveform actions ever ever collapse into reality before we came along to observe them?

They didn't. Wave functions are not spatially extended objects. They are representations of our knowledge.

The burden falls on the proponent to show how the interpretation works.

Every interpretation of the experiments "work" as noted above in the Rosenblum and Kuttner paper--the experimenter makes his Heisenberg choice, and Nature makes its Dirac choice.

And as noted, the TI doesn't change that fact or the fact that the outcome is always perfectly correlated with the choice the experimenter makes.

 

[gnostic]

1. Creationism, the position which even some scientists defend, which holds that the universe was created by God only 6000 years ago, and that a flood covered the whole Earth. It’s good to remember all the flood myths in the world, and that during the last glacial maximum or Ice Age which peaked around 17,000 years ago, sea level was 400’ lower than today. Civilizations, whatever form they took, would have been, as always, along those lower coastlines of warmer climes generally closer to the equator. The Persian Gulf would have been an actual, fertile, Garden of Eden, watered by the combined Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Those places would have been inundated by the melting of the glacial ice, sometimes catastrophically. Due to its expense and difficulty, marine archaeology is still in its infancy.
Re: Underworld: The Mysterious Origins of Civilization, Graham Hancock (2002)

Hancock is a pseudoscience idiot. He is not an archaeologist or an anthropologist. He is not a scientist.

He is mainly a journalist with a degree in sociology. Most of his works about ancient civilisations are unverified speculations and filled with conspiracy theories.

Second, according to most English western translations of the bible, which are mostly based on the Masoretic Text as primary source, the timeline in Genesis would date the Genesis Flood to 1656 years after the creation of Adam.

The timeline depends on what happen in Exodus 12:40-41, the 430 years.

40 The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; 41 at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the L ORD departed from the land of Egypt.

Would that 430 years be when Jacob was living in Egypt, or when Abraham received the covenant?

The former would put the Flood around 2104 BCE, the later would date the deluge to 2340 BCE.

It doesn't matter, which dates anyone use, because the Ice Age ended around 12,000 BCE.

No matter how anyone look at this Flood being caused by the melting of the ice from the Ice Age, there is a large gap of at least 7660 years.

If there was really Flood that caused global flood due to the melting of ice, this Flood should have happened much earlier than 2104 BCE or 2340 BCE.

For another flaw in Hancock's deluded thinking, is that the last ice age wasn't global (2.5 million years ago to 10,000 BCE. The ice sheets didn't cover as regions than much earlier ice ages.

Even at the height of the last glacial period (18,000 BCE to 17,000 BCE) known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), much of the coverages of ice sheets only cover Northern Europe (including the British Isles, which made it landlock to northern France and Belgium, because the channel was ice), northern Asia and mainly in Northern America (only parts of the US).

Pockets of ice sheets are found in higher grounds, like mountainous regions like the Alps in Switzerland and Italy, and the Andes.

The rise in sea level, occurring globally had actually occurred even before the beginning of the Neolithic period, around 12,500 BCE. There are no evidences of sharp rise of sea level, at any point between 2500 to 2000 BCE.

My point is that the whole earth may be colder, the ice sheets didn't cover as everyone believe. And my main point that if Flood was caused by melting ice of the last Ice Age, the Flood would have occurred much earlier than the estimated dates of Old Testament bible.

The whole idea of melting ice causing the destruction of civilisations with Genesis Flood by Hancock is as much as a myth as Genesis itself.

ps

The last ice age might not have ended yet, according to palaeoclimatists.

According to science, the ice age experienced a series of glacial and interglacial periods, and we have been experiencing the latest interglacial period, for the last 10,000 years. The interglacial periods are sort of like the "eye of the storm".

The most recent interglacial period in the Pleistocene epoch (which was the 3rd interglacial epoch) was between 115,000 and 130,000 years ago, so a duration of 15,000 years of warm period. The first interglacial that ended in 478,000 years ago, had actually lasted over 80,000 years. The 2nd lasted 50,000 years.

Scientists have not been able to predict when we go back to the glacial period. Perhaps it did ended in 10,000 BCE, but is actually too soon to tell, and we would be long dead to care if it does.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You made the claim that climatologists are implementing some sort of "agenda". I'm asking you to state what that agenda is, and provide evidence of its existence.

I said "socialists" are using global warming as a crisis tactic in their agenda. SOME climatologists are their accomplices, willing or otherwise, but largely motivated by government grant money--thus the motivation to jigger the books. The climategates shows what they're doing to try to cover their tracks, tangled web etc.

Einstein's ideas on QM were wrong, as demonstrated by the outcomes of numerous experiments testing Bell or CHSH inequalities--there are no local hidden variables to save us from “spooky action at a distance”. Moreover, as the EPR paper shows, what Einstein objected to was not one interpretation of QM in favor of another, but was the theory itself, specifically with respect to the issue of the wave function being a complete description of “the elements of physical reality” prior to collapse.

No, there are no hidden variables, but in consort with the EPR paradox, time is the element no one has accounted for, or rather the timelessness of non-local or entangled systems. That's the idea that science has recoiled at and wrapped itself in a Gordian Knot in an effort to avoid facing it. In an environment without time, there is no distance, no locality. The question is, how does that environment, Quantumland, intersect with the fabric of our universe.

I don't understand how it works (and I don't think anybody really does), but it's been conjectured that dark matter/energy are somehow an expression of that intersection.

It's unfortunate that Einstein didn't live to see the experiments demonstrating the non-local nature of reality.

But the EPR did demonstrate that. He just didn't understand it because the concept of an "external" quantumland associated with our local universe, was and is the unpalatable answer to the spooky action of entanglement--not human observation causing wave collapse any more than any object absorbing a wave causes its collapse.

His mind would have been blown by the prospect of quantum computers where entanglement is harnessed and qubits exist in a state of superposition.

And it blows mine still. And TI gives us the non-local of quantumland but doesn't show how entangled quantum particles flow (back and forth?) between it and our local universe.

The other physicists you've named didn't express any rejection of QM or of any particular interpretation in favor of another. You shouldn't misrepresent what people have actually said.

I haven't.

Moreover, again, you haven't shown that any interpretation of QM is erroneous, or that the TI is somehow the correct interpretation. The TI doesn't change the fact that in, e.g., Wheeler's Delayed Choice experiment, the outcome--of either single particles being detected in a single detector, or an interference pattern--is always perfectly correlated with the experimenter's prior choice.

They didn't. Wave functions are not spatially extended objects. They are representations of our knowledge.

Every interpretation of the experiments "work" as noted above in the Rosenblum and Kuttner paper--the experimenter makes his Heisenberg choice, and Nature makes its Dirac choice.

And as noted, the TI doesn't change that fact or the fact that the outcome is always perfectly correlated with the choice the experimenter makes.

Kastner gives the TI explanation for the delayed choice experiment in her book, Understanding Our Unseen Reality. It's elegant but involved and I've no way of linking to it or cutting and pasting it here. I don't have the page number (I have the Kindle edition which doesn't give them), but if you get the book, and it's well worth it, just search it for "delayed choice" or "figure 7.6".

Hancock is a pseudoscience idiot. He is not an archaeologist or an anthropologist. He is not a scientist.

So investigative journalists can't report on evidence they find, including the opinions of qualified scientists? If you've found an error, let's hear it, but it appears you haven't read what he's written since he presents both sides. Therefore, you can take your ad hominem name calling and attempts at bullying intimidation and stuff them. It really is tiresome, tedious and typical.

Second, according to most English western translations of the bible, which are mostly based on the Masoretic Text as primary source, the timeline in Genesis would date the Genesis Flood to 1656 years after the creation of Adam.

The timeline depends on what happen in Exodus 12:40-41, the 430 years.

Would that 430 years be when Jacob was living in Egypt, or when Abraham received the covenant?

The former would put the Flood around 2104 BCE, the later would date the deluge to 2340 BCE.

Your kidding. You use a timeline extrapolate from bogus biblical chronology?

It doesn't matter, which dates anyone use, because the Ice Age ended around 12,000 BCE.

Wrong again. We are actually still in the Ice Age that started two and a half million years ago. The last glacial maximum period lasted from around 17,000 to 7,000 ya. That's a fact and a fact and a letter person would be resorting to name calling about now.

No matter how anyone look at this Flood being caused by the melting of the ice from the Ice Age, there is a large gap of at least 7660 years.

If there was really Flood that caused global flood due to the melting of ice, this Flood should have happened much earlier than 2104 BCE or 2340 BCE.

Yes, so?

For another flaw in Hancock's deluded thinking, is that the last ice age wasn't global (2.5 million years ago to 10,000 BCE. The ice sheets didn't cover as regions than much earlier ice ages.

The areas covered by the ice caps during the last glacial maximum aren't in dispute at all, and he's just reporting them.

Even at the height of the last glacial period (18,000 BCE to 17,000 BCE) known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), much of the coverages of ice sheets only cover Northern Europe (including the British Isles, which made it landlock to northern France and Belgium, because the channel was ice), northern Asia and mainly in Northern America (only parts of the US).

They were miles high and the water (ice) they contained lowered sea level by over 400'. That' not it dispute either, unless you're counting yourself.

Pockets of ice sheets are found in higher grounds, like mountainous regions like the Alps in Switzerland and Italy, and the Andes.

The rise in sea level, occurring globally had actually occurred even before the beginning of the Neolithic period, around 12,500 BCE. There are no evidences of sharp rise of sea level, at any point between 2500 to 2000 BCE.

Again, you need to read what he wrote. He never said there was.

My point is that the whole earth may be colder, the ice sheets didn't cover as everyone believe. And my main point that if Flood was caused by melting ice of the last Ice Age, the Flood would have occurred much earlier than the estimated dates of Old Testament bible.

I and I'm sure he would agree. The biblical flood covered the whole Earth, which didn't happen, because it's a myth like other such flood myths recorded by civilizations around the world, which Hancock discusses--again, which you'd know if you'd read his book.

The whole idea of melting ice causing the destruction of civilisations with Genesis Flood by Hancock is as much as a myth as Genesis itself.

Again, the 400' sea level rise between appx. 17,000 to 7,000 ya due to ice cap melting isn't in dispute.

 

[Jose Fly]

I said "socialists" are using global warming as a crisis tactic in their agenda.

Please state what this agenda is and show direct evidence of its existence.

SOME climatologists are their accomplices, willing or otherwise, but largely motivated by government grant money--thus the motivation to jigger the books. The climategates shows what they're doing to try to cover their tracks, tangled web etc.

Again, show your evidence for these accusations.

 

[Nous]

Kastner gives the TI explanation for the delayed choice experiment in her book, Understanding Our Unseen Reality. It's elegant but involved and I've no way of linking to it or cutting and pasting it here. I don't have the page number (I have the Kindle edition which doesn't give them), but if you get the book, and it's well worth it, just search it for "delayed choice" or "figure 7.6".

Cramer describes the Delayed Choice Experiment here. Again, the TI doesn't change the fact that the outcome--whether particle or wave characteristics are observed--is always perfectly correlated with the experimenter's prior choice. The Delayed Choice experiment is really more informative in this way if done with an interferometer--where the light beam initially hits a half-silvered mirror as it enters the interferometer, then two regular mirrors at opposite corners of the interferometer, reflecting the light toward the final corner where there is another half-silvered mirror, which the experimenter decides to either leave in place or remove after the light has already begun its trip through the interferometer: Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia

The experimenter can (theoretically) made his choice after the light has had time to pass the set of regular mirrors, and his/her choice dictates how the light traveled as particles or a wave prior to encountering those regular mirrors.

In any case, the TI implies that the experimenter's choice in the experiment is not his choice but is something determined by the undetectable advanced wave arriving from the future. That sort of absolute determinism doesn't really help us to understand empirical reality--it only makes everything a mystery. There is definitely no rational reason to believe that our choices of performing simple actions, such as leaving a mirror in its place or removing it, are determined by anything other than ourselves. I can "predict" that I will post a nonsensical phrase in purple font on this thread tomorrow, then (only because I can determine my own bodily actions), actually post such. According to the TI, that means that today I have accurately predicted the configuration of particles that the future universe will require for tomorrow. But obviously I can't make such accurate predictions about the state of the universe generally--I can't predict what (if anything) you will post here tomorrow. I can only say what my own voluntary bodily acts will be tomorrow, then (ceteris parabis) choose to perform the action I said I would perform.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Please state what this agenda is and show direct evidence of its existence

Again, show your evidence for these accusations.

As I have already said, and for the last time:
The use of crisis management via the false issue of man-made global warming to advance socialist agenda as proven by the various examples of climategate--which are only the ones that have been discovered. But of course, like all the damning evidence against revealed religions, there can never be proof that will be accepted by those exercising blind faith--proving once again that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[siti]

Climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate,...there - I've repeated it 17 times that MUST qualify as evidence now! Now having proved by repetition that climate change is a socialist conspiracy, I will now go on to prove that evolution is a liberal leftist atheist hoax...Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man...

 

[psychoslice]

What about the hundreds of myths of religion ?.

 

[siti]

What about the hundreds of myths of religion ?.

I don't have time to repeat all of them 17 times - pity really, I could prove everything that anyone has ever believed by that method

 

[psychoslice]

I don't have time to repeat all of them 17 times - pity really, I could prove everything that anyone has ever believed by that method

Well of you go.

 

[Jose Fly]

As I have already said

Exactly. All you've done is say this agenda exists and that climatologists are part of it. And apparently you also think your mere say-so is sufficient to establish them as facts.

Sorry, but I don't work that way. If you cannot provide a clear description of this agenda, actual evidence that it exists, and actual evidence that climatologists are part of it, then there is no reason to accept any of it as true.

 

[gnostic]

Exactly. All you've done is say this agenda exists and that climatologists are part of it. And apparently you also think your mere say-so is sufficient to establish them as facts.

I don't think ThePainfulTruth is helping his cause, when he say climatologists and anyone who accept climate changes, as being socialists.

That's weak argument, no better when creationists use similar and pathetic tactics of comparing atheism with communism, or evolution with communism, or evolution with atheism.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate, climategate,...there - I've repeated it 17 times that MUST qualify as evidence now! Now having proved by repetition that climate change is a socialist conspiracy, I will now go on to prove that evolution is a liberal leftist atheist hoax...Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man, Piltdown Man...

Looks like you're having a meltdown, since you can't come up with a response to one climategate much less all of them. Inconvenient truths have a way of backfiring with the supposed "truth" is BS.

What about the hundreds of myths of religion ?.

Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right and two myths don't make a Truth.

Exactly. All you've done is say this agenda exists and that climatologists are part of it. And apparently you also think your mere say-so is sufficient to establish them as facts.

Where's the money coming from to fund this BS? The UN, world socialist central, and US/Eurpean government bureaucracies. Did you not read what that UN climate change rep said just last week? But hey, I'm a nice guy, and even though you obviously aren't going to lift your little finger to find out, I'll repost it here (SITI obviously missed it as well):
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.

Looks like you have the same problem as Siti, no refutation for the climategates, or the evidence that the Sun still controls any climate change as it has for billions of years before us. But for the sake of argument, and abandoning all reason, lets assume it isn't being run by the socialists. So what? They're still cooking the data to make global warming look real. So lets compromise and say the global warming is a conspiracy of unknown origin. I can deal with that if it'll get people to open their eyes. Capitalism will eventually win out anyway, because it's the system that provides freedom AND prosperity.

Sorry, but I don't work that way. If you cannot provide a clear description of this agenda, actual evidence that it exists, and actual evidence that climatologists are part of it, then there is no reason to accept any of it as true.

See above.

I don't think ThePainfulTruth is helping his cause, when he say climatologists and anyone who accept climate changes, as being socialists.

They are, but read what I just wrote.

That's weak argument, no better when creationists use similar and pathetic tactics of comparing atheism with communism, or evolution with communism, or evolution with atheism.

What's your point? I've often charged that socialism is the new religion which uses the same idealogial framework as the revealed religions for overcoming reason--emotion driven blind faith. Heaven, Utopia (aka Heaven on Earth), it's the same old line, disregard that man behind the curtain.