Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over
-
Climate Alarmists Finally Admit The Debate Is Not Over
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 24, 2009http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmists-finally-admit-the-debate-is-not-over/
Top climate alarmists have conceded that the climategate scandal represents a huge blow to the global warming movement and that the debate is not over, and yet establishment media organs are still invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady in downplaying the story despite the fact that it clearly illustrates how evidence which directly disproves global warming is being censored by agenda-driven scientists.
The Guardian’s George Monbiot, a climate change zealot and a staunch defender of the faith, concedes that the science now needs “reanalyising” and that CRU Director Phil Jones should resign.
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them,” writes Monbiot.
“Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.”
“Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”
Another prominent global warming alarmist, Tim Flannery, now admits that there are holes in the “science is settled” mantra.
“We’re dealing with an incomplete understanding of the way the earth system works… When we come to the last few years when we haven’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend we don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate…We just don’t understand the way the whole system works… See, these people work with models, computer modelling. So when the computer modelling and the real world data disagree you’ve got a very interesting problem… Sure for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend,” said Flannery.
“And on these now-admitted uncertainties we must scrap all coal-fired generators, impose massive new taxes, shut entire industries, hand billions to the UN and change the way we live?” asks Andrew Bolt.
However, while some alarmists have embarked on a course of damage control, the establishment has closed ranks and, after failing in their efforts to float the hoax that the emails were manufactured, are now ludicrously invoking South Park’s Officer Barbrady and crying in unison, “Move along, nothing to see here!”
In an article entitled, Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer, Reuters’ Timothy Gardner writes, “Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill’s chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal.”
Oh really? With numerous influential individuals calling for criminal investigations, and with climate alarmists themselves admitting that scientists closely affiliated with the UN IPCC exposed by the hacked emails should resign, only the wilfully naive could believe that this will not hamper the Copenhagen agenda for a global carbon tax, which was already being derailed before the scandal broke.
The latest to weigh in on the controversy was prominent skeptic Lord Monkton, who labeled the CRU scientists crooks who should be criminally prosecuted. “They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”
The Reuters story quotes Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, who claims there is no smoking gun contained in the emails, despite the fact that they expose how scientists used “tricks” to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
In another email, a scientist talks about changing temperature data on a graph in order to disguise evidence of global cooling that has been in play for the last few years.
“I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”
To Leiserowitz, this isn’t evidence of conspiracy, merely “embarrassment” which would “provide fodder for the 2 to 3 percent of the general public that are hard-core climate change doubters.”
In reality, polls show that a huge and growing number of both Americans and Brits are “climate change doubters.” A recent Pew Research Center survey showed that only 36 per cent of Americans believe man is to blame for climate change, whereas in Britain, “Only 41 percent accept as an established scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made.”
Far from being a tiny minority, as Leiserowitz claims, climate change skeptics are now in the majority, as belief in global warming alarmism whittles away increasingly to the fringe.
The Reuters story also quotes Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC, who characterizes the scandal as “scientists behaving badly.”
“This does nothing to the U.S. climate bill, which will be decided mostly by economic forces, not environmental ones,” said Book.
Precisely – this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with companies like ClearView getting fat off the spoils of the climate fraud that they are intimately invested in. Obviously, to the scientists at the CRU, it has little to do with the environment either, since they are more than willing to block FOIA requests, change data and hide evidence of global cooling in order to make the science fit their agenda.
To dismiss this as “behaving badly” shows unparalleled ignorance of what science is supposed to be all about, namely empiricism, not bias and fraud, which is exactly what the global warming movement has now come to represent.
-
Have you even read the emails in question before you copy and paste a post from someone who never believed in global warming in the first place?
-
For the sake of humanity's survival, it's better to do something to plug the ozone hole and failed than to do nothing and let humanity perish.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Have you even read the emails in question before you copy and paste a post from someone who never believed in global warming in the first place?
Nope I haven't. On the other hand, have you read all 1000+ emails and 150 MB worth of documents relating to this scandal?
Yeah, I'm sure Paul Joseph Watson doesn't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and that certainly would skew his opinion on it. But this isn't an opinion. This is coverage of probably the biggest scientific scandal in recent years.
While I have not read every email that was posted online, reading just a fraction of them serves as confirmation of the fraud taking place.
This blog provides a good summary of the findings with links to the various emails. With statements like these quoted below, its hard to try to brush them off without seeming biased.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keepthemout somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
"I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done - often
wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words.I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same."There's much more to be said about the vested interest in pushing this so-called AGW consensus on the public, and its unfortunate that people cling on to this theory religiously probably because its been so ingrained by the MSM and popular culture.
As one writer from the Telegraph wrote, "There’s no point in anyone from the AGW camp watching it: they’ve made up their minds and no quantity of contrary evidence, however devastating, is going to shake their considered position of “Nyah nyah nyah. Got my fingers in my ears. Not listening. The world IS warming and it’s man’s fault. Must tax carbon now….”"
-
Do you realise how stupid you sound by believing that these excerpts representing the whole message?1000 emails, 150 MB worth of information and you just willingly let someone you don't know personally to decide the Truth for you ?
99% of this forum could be taken in by the ISA by the charge of attempting to overthrow the government if we just take a few sentences and a paragraph or two of every post we did and send them in.
Just datamining this forum with "I want the PAP government gone" would probably have turn up thousands of entries.
There is more than enough here to jail AndrewPKYap and angel3070 for life if those in power really wants to do it.
I'm just going to post the full message of "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi all
> Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are
> asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two
> days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high
> the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
> previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also
> a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January
> weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday
> and then played last night in below freezing weather).
>
> Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
> tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
> Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
>
> (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
>
> The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
> and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the
> August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more
> warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.The first part is meant to be a sarcastic joke, because it is often that the fact of heavy snow been used as the reasoning to debunk global warming. The more accurate and more used term now is Climate Change because there are too many idiots that take global warming as a literal term.
The travesty is the inadequate observation system, not the lack of warming. It's always amazing how the message could change when you reveal the full extent of it.
And do you know there is little to no information on the credentials on the blog you've linked? The only thing we know is that the man lives in rural Scotland, there is little to no information on whether he has actually any format education in fields relating to climate change. He just links *excerpts* of articles that means little and supply his own conclusions at the end of it.
It's not even funny how easy it would be to take a portion of what is said to mean something totally different. Richard Dawkins have faced the same problems with Creationism as well.
You have always complained about how the big corporations and banks are controlling our lives, yet you are here stupidly protecting their interests and making sure things stay status quo.
Use some common sense, if we're wrong about global warming the most that is going to happen is that we're going to end up a little poorer and a bruised ego but we get more access to renewable energy, more efficient building codes and technology as well as less dependance on fossil fuels.
What happens if we're right? You're nuts for thinking we can even tolerate the reprecussions of being right.
You can't take it into your thick skull the full impact of what happens if we're right. You're just believing anything as long as it's anti establishment and parroting the words of Americans who just don't like the idea of an organistation able to tell them what to do.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Do you realise how stupid you sound by believing that these excerpts representing the whole message?1000 emails, 150 MB worth of information and you just willingly let someone you don't know personally to decide the Truth for you ?
99% of this forum could be taken in by the ISA by the charge of attempting to overthrow the government if we just take a few sentences and a paragraph or two of every post we did and send them in.
Just datamining this forum with "I want the PAP government gone" would probably have turn up thousands of entries.
There is more than enough here to jail AndrewPKYap and angel3070 for life if those in power really wants to do it.
I'm just going to post the full message of "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"
The first part is meant to be a sarcastic joke, because it is often that the fact of heavy snow been used as the reasoning to debunk global warming. The more accurate and more used term now is Climate Change because there are too many idiots that take global warming as a literal term.
The travesty is the inadequate observation system, not the lack of warming. It's always amazing how the message could change when you reveal the full extent of it.
And do you know there is little to no information on the credentials on the blog you've linked? The only thing we know is that the man lives in rural Scotland, there is little to no information on whether he has actually any format education in fields relating to climate change. He just links *excerpts* of articles that means little and supply his own conclusions at the end of it.
It's not even funny how easy it would be to take a portion of what is said to mean something totally different. Richard Dawkins have faced the same problems with Creationism as well.
You have always complained about how the big corporations and banks are controlling our lives, yet you are here stupidly protecting their interests and making sure things stay status quo.
Use some common sense, if we're wrong about global warming the most that is going to happen is that we're going to end up a little poorer and a bruised ego but we get more access to renewable energy, more efficient building codes and technology as well as less dependance on fossil fuels.
What happens if we're right? You're nuts for thinking we can even tolerate the reprecussions of being right.
You can't take it into your thick skull the full impact of what happens if we're right. You're just believing anything as long as it's anti establishment and parroting the words of Americans who just don't like the idea of an organistation able to tell them what to do.
First of all, the authors of those emails were scientists with significant influence to affect the dissemination of scientific information, which they did. They can't be compared to the insignificant forumers on this board.
Secondly, I'm not advocating anything just because they are anti-estalishment or anti-government. This matter merely confirms my previous belief that the theory of AGW is not science-driven. Moreover, it seems curious why this is being glossed over by the MSM. A "scandal" by a celebrity would have generated news coverage many times over.
With regard to the email about the lack of warming data, it seems to me that its the politics that is leading the science. Rather than admit that the environmental data collected revealed how flawed the theory of AGW is, they blamed the "inadequency" of the observation system.
It doesn't matter of the owner of that blog has no so-called "credentials". It isn't a scientific paper we're discussing here. He merely summarises and links to the significant emails that point to fraud, probably with information taken from elsewhere.
Then what about the others damning statements that talk about "redefin[ing] what peer review literature is" or about attempts to evade FOI requests?
Of course, it is always wise to be cautious when it comes to a dynamic study like atmospheric science. But on glance at who benefits from AGW 'solutions' raises the question whether those 'solutions' are aimed at preserving the environment. The same Al Gore who now admits that CO2 doesn't cause majority of global warming is now set to rake in billions from carbon trading. Similarly, it is big players from the finance and energy industry that support the measures supposedly aimed at reducing carbon emission through a cap and trade policy that are going to benefit; industry giants like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil.
It is a huge misconception to think that AGW and 'solutions' to combat it is anti-establishment when clearly, it serves the establishment's interest to see that they are implemented. This seems like the so-called "pincer" strategy where a problem is created and then pressure is put on the government through corporate special interests and the "masses" stirred up by NGOs, funded by the corporatocracy, to get the desired solution.
It's not that I'm not for protecting the environment, but the solution that is being put forward is nothing less than a sign that its business as usual for the corporatocracy that is only interested in monetary acquisition and political monopoly. Any environmental concern is just superficial as the main pushers of AGW theory have already admitted.
Finally, "climate change" is a meaningless phrase because the climate is always changing. There's too many things we don't know about the atmosphere, the planet and cosmic influences and their inter-relation with each other to come to a conclusion that any change is due to Man.
But as I've told you before, its not the desire to create a more environmentally sound world, but the fake "solutions" which doesn't solve what they claim to. If you're so passionate about saving the Earth, all the more you should oppose the pro-corporate nature of mainstream AGW discussion and maybe look more into The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
-
dear conspiracy theorist..
please read this => Why the Green Party runs the world
-
why not, just tax all our asses off anything that will cost heat?
Global warming.
Historian VS Scientist
Historian : Bull Crap, this kind of weather happen in the past too its go up, its come down. ITS NORMAL
Scientist : Global warming is coming.... debate debate debate...
Scientist (after ten Thousand years) : OMG Global warming is coming.. then.. debate debate debate
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
dear conspiracy theorist..
please read this => Why the Green Party runs the world
This seems like a "If it be of Man, it will fail. If it be of God, nothing you do will be able to affect it" mentality. Perhaps it shows how some scientific beliefs are still religiously protected, like when Geolileo supported the idea of a heliocentric universe and was persecuted.
Too much faith is being put into words like "peer review" and "scientific method" that the notions of corruption are totally ignored.
Dear Bear, please go read:
-
Hacked climate change email furor
Hacked climate change emails - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to Michael Brklacic
-
Back in the 1970s some people talked about global cooling, later it became global warming:
The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/
Global cooling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
-
I don't think it would snow in Singapore overnight. The climate would turn slowly into temperate first.
We would be prepared if snow comes.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZ,,,,,WHO CARES.
-
it was a wall of text.. a good wall of text to read through.. it comes from someone who is cynical, angry, and most of all disinterested...
but this part of the whole wall of text says a lot:
As for me, I’ll follow the blogs with interest and see how this all shakes out. But even if someone, somewhere, proves that a handful of climatologists deliberately fudged their findings — well, I’ll be there with everyone else calling to have the bastards run out of town, but it won’t matter much in terms of the overall weight of the data. I went running through Toronto the other day on a 17°C November afternoon. Canada’s west coast is currently underwater. Sea level continues its 3mm/yr creep up the coasts of the world, the western Siberian permafrost turns to slush. Swathes of California and Australia are pretty much permanent firestorm zones these days. The glaciers retreat, the Arctic ice cap shrinks, a myriad migratory species still show up at their northern destinations weeks before they’re supposed to. The pine beetle furthers its westward invasion, leaving dead forests in its wake— the winters, you see, are no longer cold enough to hit that lethal reset button that once kept their numbers in check.
I could go on, but you get my drift. And if the Climate-Change Hoax Machine is powerful enough to do all that, you know what?
They deserve to win.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
First of all, the authors of those emails were scientists with significant influence to affect the dissemination of scientific information, which they did. They can't be compared to the insignificant forumers on this board.
Secondly, I'm not advocating anything just because they are anti-estalishment or anti-government. This matter merely confirms my previous belief that the theory of AGW is not science-driven. Moreover, it seems curious why this is being glossed over by the MSM. A "scandal" by a celebrity would have generated news coverage many times over.
With regard to the email about the lack of warming data, it seems to me that its the politics that is leading the science. Rather than admit that the environmental data collected revealed how flawed the theory of AGW is, they blamed the "inadequency" of the observation system.
It doesn't matter of the owner of that blog has no so-called "credentials". It isn't a scientific paper we're discussing here. He merely summarises and links to the significant emails that point to fraud, probably with information taken from elsewhere.
Then what about the others damning statements that talk about "redefin[ing] what peer review literature is" or about attempts to evade FOI requests?
Of course, it is always wise to be cautious when it comes to a dynamic study like atmospheric science. But on glance at who benefits from AGW 'solutions' raises the question whether those 'solutions' are aimed at preserving the environment. The same Al Gore who now admits that CO2 doesn't cause majority of global warming is now set to rake in billions from carbon trading. Similarly, it is big players from the finance and energy industry that support the measures supposedly aimed at reducing carbon emission through a cap and trade policy that are going to benefit; industry giants like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil.
It is a huge misconception to think that AGW and 'solutions' to combat it is anti-establishment when clearly, it serves the establishment's interest to see that they are implemented. This seems like the so-called "pincer" strategy where a problem is created and then pressure is put on the government through corporate special interests and the "masses" stirred up by NGOs, funded by the corporatocracy, to get the desired solution.
It's not that I'm not for protecting the environment, but the solution that is being put forward is nothing less than a sign that its business as usual for the corporatocracy that is only interested in monetary acquisition and political monopoly. Any environmental concern is just superficial as the main pushers of AGW theory have already admitted.
Finally, "climate change" is a meaningless phrase because the climate is always changing. There's too many things we don't know about the atmosphere, the planet and cosmic influences and their inter-relation with each other to come to a conclusion that any change is due to Man.
But as I've told you before, its not the desire to create a more environmentally sound world, but the fake "solutions" which doesn't solve what they claim to. If you're so passionate about saving the Earth, all the more you should oppose the pro-corporate nature of mainstream AGW discussion and maybe look more into The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
It has nothing to do with the influence of the people in question, my intention is to drive home the point that casual and offhand comments that we made between friends and colleagues could easily be used against us to hint something other than the ordinary.
I have even went through a portion of the emails for arguments' sake. Most of it is extremely boring stuff, so i can see why lazy people who are not prepared to use a magnifying glass on scrutinizing the evidence on both sides could easily be duped into believing something that isn't there.
There isn't any mention of any combined efforts in the emails i've read so far to dupe the world into the Great Global Warming Conspiracy. No mention of any groups or corporations driving the scientists and directing the effort.
Oh really? Somehow you think spreading rumours of a conspiracy possibly sabotaging efforts to assist Third World Countries to combat the potential devastating efforts of rising sea levels and getting the world off the usage of fossil fuels do not require credentials and format training ?
So you think a teenager sitting in front of his computer should be given the same weight in his opinion as Noam Chomsky? Would you trust a trainee doctor fresh out of medical school with brain surgery? Or a colleage student the reins to manage the construction of a nuclear plant?
I don't know what "Redefining peer review literature" is, and i bet you don't either. So kindly explain to me what exactly this means, and don't try to cut and paste it from somewhere.
I've actually read the emails regarding the FOI requests i can understand why they had to do what they did. The request was from a man who was a mathematician and not schooled in climate sciences.
They did not want to deal with a man whose sole aim was to prove them wrong and would definitely have to keep distracting them from doing proper work with clarifications and questions.
Granted, this is a questionable practice. However, i can only see attempts to avoid handling distractions from a person who was not academically trained in their field but not an effort to doctor numbers in support of global warming.
Academic laziness? Yes. But saying they're deliberately trying to promote global warming and that it isn't happening? Not from what i see from the natural disasters this year and certainly not from the pictures of i've seen of diminishing ice caps in the Arctic Circle and Greenland. And of the Red Sandstorm in Australia and near constant forest fires there and in California.
Most importantly however, it only indicate one group of scientists who just didn't want to go through the hassle of having to convince someone who has already decided what the truth is and does by itself is not indicative of a global effort by scientists to hoodwink us.
Also note, the data that was FOI requested didn't belong them to them it belonged to the Russians. Thus it wasn't covered under the FOI, you cannot give something that isn't licensed to you.
That is correct, manmade carbon dioxide is not the main cause for global warming. I can agree on it.
But major disasters are rarely driven by just one cause. Like the Three Mile Island incident and the recent Financial Crisis it takes a "perfect storm" of happenstances and coincidences in order to create a major disaster.
Yes, global warming has happened in prehistoric times and as recent as the 1400s in Greenland. But we have a new factor that has never happened before in Earth's history. We have a 7 billion sized population, burning fossil fuels and cutting down the jungles/forests that were supposed to recycle those carbon dioxides.
We do not know the full consequences of what this new factor may bring but we know if this new factors nudge the temperature just 1-2 degrees it's more than enough to make the warming become from "mildly uncomfortable" to full blown droughts and floods.
Yes, man made carbon dioxide alone is not capable of making major drastic changes to global warming. But all it takes is just a slight and miniscule contribution to the warming to completely disrupt our food and water supply.
We may, in fact be recovering from the Little Ice Age but we have no idea how much more the warming's going to be and whether our current crops and glacial levels could still be maintained to support 7 billion people which is continuing to rise.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
First of all, the authors of those emails were scientists with significant influence to affect the dissemination of scientific information, which they did. They can't be compared to the insignificant forumers on this board.
Secondly, I'm not advocating anything just because they are anti-estalishment or anti-government. This matter merely confirms my previous belief that the theory of AGW is not science-driven. Moreover, it seems curious why this is being glossed over by the MSM. A "scandal" by a celebrity would have generated news coverage many times over.
With regard to the email about the lack of warming data, it seems to me that its the politics that is leading the science. Rather than admit that the environmental data collected revealed how flawed the theory of AGW is, they blamed the "inadequency" of the observation system.
It doesn't matter of the owner of that blog has no so-called "credentials". It isn't a scientific paper we're discussing here. He merely summarises and links to the significant emails that point to fraud, probably with information taken from elsewhere.
Then what about the others damning statements that talk about "redefin[ing] what peer review literature is" or about attempts to evade FOI requests?
Of course, it is always wise to be cautious when it comes to a dynamic study like atmospheric science. But on glance at who benefits from AGW 'solutions' raises the question whether those 'solutions' are aimed at preserving the environment. The same Al Gore who now admits that CO2 doesn't cause majority of global warming is now set to rake in billions from carbon trading. Similarly, it is big players from the finance and energy industry that support the measures supposedly aimed at reducing carbon emission through a cap and trade policy that are going to benefit; industry giants like Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil.
It is a huge misconception to think that AGW and 'solutions' to combat it is anti-establishment when clearly, it serves the establishment's interest to see that they are implemented. This seems like the so-called "pincer" strategy where a problem is created and then pressure is put on the government through corporate special interests and the "masses" stirred up by NGOs, funded by the corporatocracy, to get the desired solution.
It's not that I'm not for protecting the environment, but the solution that is being put forward is nothing less than a sign that its business as usual for the corporatocracy that is only interested in monetary acquisition and political monopoly. Any environmental concern is just superficial as the main pushers of AGW theory have already admitted.
Finally, "climate change" is a meaningless phrase because the climate is always changing. There's too many things we don't know about the atmosphere, the planet and cosmic influences and their inter-relation with each other to come to a conclusion that any change is due to Man.
But as I've told you before, its not the desire to create a more environmentally sound world, but the fake "solutions" which doesn't solve what they claim to. If you're so passionate about saving the Earth, all the more you should oppose the pro-corporate nature of mainstream AGW discussion and maybe look more into The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement.
I'm just going to cut my response into 2 portions, if it's too long it's just too tiring to read.I'm just going to use simple common sense here. If the intention of the Coperhagen is to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions then it stands to reason that those in the corporatocracy who contribute to carbon emissions would be the most affected.
This is the list of the top 10 fortune 500:
6. Total2. Exxon Mobil8. ING Group4. BP9. Sinopec5. Chevron10. Toyota MotorThe ING Group is a Netherlands bank so probably would profit by providing the services for carbon trading.
Walmart is a retail conglomerate which is heavily dependant on the transport of its good among its supermarkets so it would be badly hurt by the increased taxes on gasoline and carbon emissions.
I don't think i need to elaborate on Toyota. They seemed to be quite capable of producing the zero emission vehicles that we want made.
The rest of the 7 are all oil corporations. And part of the intiative to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions would have to include the shifting away from oil/coal/NG as our primary source of energy.
So you are telling me, that 7 of the top 10 fortune 500 are conspiring to back an intiative that would eventually shoot their own foot so to speak?
I see any efforts towards environmentalism requiring the efforts of coordinating hundreds of thousands of people, a scale only governments and corporations could support.
Someone is bound to profit from it, trying to make sure no one's going to benefit from it is just as ridiculous as saying parasites are unnatural.
Again, you continue to behave like i lack knowledge of the Venus Project and Zeigeist movements. I made the effort to read and understand it, thus i also know what needs to happen in order for it to become reality.
It would involve violence and a lot of shedding of blood. Whether by nature or by the hands of Man i don't know. That is not what i think we need right now, though of course by sabotaging the efforts to combat global warming you might actually have the chance of getting it to happen.
-
Originally posted by mancha:
I don't think it would snow in Singapore overnight. The climate would turn slowly into temperate first.
We would be prepared if snow comes.
Considering we're at the equator i think our problems would start coming wayyy before the first snowflake lands.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
It has nothing to do with the influence of the people in question, my intention is to drive home the point that casual and offhand comments that we made between friends and colleagues could easily be used against us to hint something other than the ordinary.
I have even went through a portion of the emails for arguments' sake. Most of it is extremely boring stuff, so i can see why lazy people who are not prepared to use a magnifying glass on scrutinizing the evidence on both sides could easily be duped into believing something that isn't there.
There isn't any mention of any combined efforts in the emails i've read so far to dupe the world into the Great Global Warming Conspiracy. No mention of any groups or corporations driving the scientists and directing the effort.
Oh really? Somehow you think spreading rumours of a conspiracy possibly sabotaging efforts to assist Third World Countries to combat the potential devastating efforts of rising sea levels and getting the world off the usage of fossil fuels do not require credentials and format training ?
So you think a teenager sitting in front of his computer should be given the same weight in his opinion as Noam Chomsky? Would you trust a trainee doctor fresh out of medical school with brain surgery? Or a colleage student the reins to manage the construction of a nuclear plant?
I don't know what "Redefining peer review literature" is, and i bet you don't either. So kindly explain to me what exactly this means, and don't try to cut and paste it from somewhere.
I've actually read the emails regarding the FOI requests i can understand why they had to do what they did. The request was from a man who was a mathematician and not schooled in climate sciences.
They did not want to deal with a man whose sole aim was to prove them wrong and would definitely have to keep distracting them from doing proper work with clarifications and questions.
Granted, this is a questionable practice. However, i can only see attempts to avoid handling distractions from a person who was not academically trained in their field but not an effort to doctor numbers in support of global warming.
Academic laziness? Yes. But saying they're deliberately trying to promote global warming and that it isn't happening? Not from what i see from the natural disasters this year and certainly not from the pictures of i've seen of diminishing ice caps in the Arctic Circle and Greenland. And of the Red Sandstorm in Australia and near constant forest fires there and in California.
Most importantly however, it only indicate one group of scientists who just didn't want to go through the hassle of having to convince someone who has already decided what the truth is and does by itself is not indicative of a global effort by scientists to hoodwink us.
Also note, the data that was FOI requested didn't belong them to them it belonged to the Russians. Thus it wasn't covered under the FOI, you cannot give something that isn't licensed to you.
That is correct, manmade carbon dioxide is not the main cause for global warming. I can agree on it.
But major disasters are rarely driven by just one cause. Like the Three Mile Island incident and the recent Financial Crisis it takes a "perfect storm" of happenstances and coincidences in order to create a major disaster.
Yes, global warming has happened in prehistoric times and as recent as the 1400s in Greenland. But we have a new factor that has never happened before in Earth's history. We have a 7 billion sized population, burning fossil fuels and cutting down the jungles/forests that were supposed to recycle those carbon dioxides.
We do not know the full consequences of what this new factor may bring but we know if this new factors nudge the temperature just 1-2 degrees it's more than enough to make the warming become from "mildly uncomfortable" to full blown droughts and floods.
Yes, man made carbon dioxide alone is not capable of making major drastic changes to global warming. But all it takes is just a slight and miniscule contribution to the warming to completely disrupt our food and water supply.
We may, in fact be recovering from the Little Ice Age but we have no idea how much more the warming's going to be and whether our current crops and glacial levels could still be maintained to support 7 billion people which is continuing to rise.
I know, there absolutely can't be a conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists, corporate figures and politicians scheming to deceive us for whatever purposes. There just can't be right?
Its simply the kind of behaviour which our social system produces via the profit-survival mechanism. Just like how Bayer deliberately sold HIV-contaminated vaccines, once there is a vested interest attached to a particular outcome, the groups that have the power will naturally gravitate towards it; even if it goes against the facts or human concern.
4 points as to why this is so important, which I took from a Telegraph article:
1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?
On the issue of taking statements out of context etc, it seems like you're trying to defend the indefensible. Without calling masscres pacification, torture enhanced interrogation techniques or the War on Terror overseas contingency operations, let's just call them as they are. Manipulation of data and efforts to silence skeptics by pressuring scientific journals among others.
And more so after Michael Mann has attempted to distance himself from the released emails. Granted this may an effort to make the best of a mess, but if there was nothing devious about them, why the flip flop?
As prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook commented:
Its not like the science is unsettled. We know that the Sun is causing warming on Earth as well as on other planets. We know that global temperatures (whatever that means) has been falling (ironically from CRU data).
But because of the vested interest associated with climate change solutions, the corporate media has largely taken a one-sided point of view. Why else would the BBC delay the release of the story despite knowing of it a month before the emails were leaked? Why would CNN waited 6 days after the emails were released before reporting on it? Moreover, the first reports by the MSM focused largely on data theft or omitted the implications of scientific fraud. Given the MSM's history of reporting skewd information over the last decade, its surprising there is still so much trust in such a failed institution.
As I have said again and again, even if the science for a warming is concrete, the solutions being pushed are completely a scam. By all means, I'm for environmental protection and the full utilisation of renewable energy methods. Even the prominent pro-climate change scientist James Hansen has voiced opposition to such a scheme. Not only did he called for the failure of the Copenhagen Summit:
but he also recognised that the cap-and-trade scheme would just be business as usual for the corporatocracy:
No offence, but I think you're being extremely naive to believe that a concerted effort by governments and the corporatocracy to regulate carbon emissions would also threaten their own interest for the sake of environmental concern.
And of course, don't forget Goldman Sachs, which has both hands in Obama's pants, and especially Al Gore, are all set to profit immensely from a carbon derivative market (Who says the bankers have learnt their lesson?). Rather than "shoot their own foot", its going to be the middle and lower classes that will be bearing the
financial and social costs of such a policy. Do we really need this to teach us about elite double standards when history is full of it?That's the sickness with society. Problems only get 'solved' when its profitable to do so while getting mixed up with all kinds of vested interests, just like the present situation. As George Carlin put it:
To you, a TVP solution where we use our immensely advanced technology to free ourselves from the shackles of money and jobs, ushering in a new concept of freedom, and which would (God forbid!) create an egalitarian society where we all shared with each other obviously wouldnt work because as everyone knows, the free market is the only system that can promote human concern and progress.
I know I've rambled long enough and I hope you still have the energy to cover one last (short) point.
With statements like "2009 is... the first year of global governance" and that "The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet" by first EU president Herman Van Rompuy, its obvious which outcome is the one supported by huge vested interests.
While that isnt concrete enough to prove anything, it highlights the question as to whether MSM coverage and the moulding of the public consciousness is affected by such conflicts of interest.
-
I would really appreciate it if you just break your post into chunks, because i really don't have the time to respond to such a long post.
But let's respond to the first few parts.
I know, there absolutely can't be a conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists, corporate figures and politicians scheming to deceive us for whatever purposes. There just can't be right?
Its simply the kind of behaviour which our social system produces via the profit-survival mechanism. Just like how Bayer deliberately sold HIV-contaminated vaccines, once there is a vested interest attached to a particular outcome, the groups that have the power will naturally gravitate towards it; even if it goes against the facts or human concern
I don't get whether you're trying to be sarcastic or trying to say something smart. You need to present it a lit better. But unless i'm positive of what you're trying to say i think i'd avoid commenting on it.
Regarding your 4 points.
1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed with them.
Up till now, there are no concrete evidence none that shows that these scientists have doctored their evidence. There are questionable quotes in their emails but no climate scientists have ever stepped up to say their numbers were fudged in any way.
The IPPC depends on the data from thousands of scientists and institutions spanning the globe and all agreed there is global warming and there is a connection between man made greenhouse gases and temperature rises.
Where is the evidence that there is an attempt to silence "hard-working, decent, honest scientists"? That is how scientific peer review work, if your numbers and evidences don't hold up to scrutiny then it is not valid. Just as simple as that.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They – and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s reports. They also supply the most important of the four data records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions – and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
Wait, this is a complete distortion of what happened.
We are talking about the hacked CRU emails. This point attempts to imply that all the lead authors of the IPCC are implicated into the emails.
THIS is fudging up the facts.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion (that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our money’s worth?
No arguments from me on the first portion of part 3.
The Western world had their party, and now they expect the Third World to just foot the bill? They created the conditions for the "kleptocrat" dictators in the first bloody place. How about Bangladesh and the Maldives though? They aren't dictatorships last i've heard.
For part 4, we're not buying a bloody car here. We're gambling on the possibility on whether our children would have to suffer for our indecisiveness.
If we're wrong they can still survive being poorer, if we're right it doesn't matter who was right because there won't be much people left to gloat to.
On the issue of taking statements out of context etc, it seems like you're trying to defend the indefensible. Without calling masscres pacification, torture enhanced interrogation techniques or the War on Terror overseas contingency operations, let's just call them as they are. Manipulation of data and efforts to silence skeptics by pressuring scientific journals among others.
And more so after Michael Mann has attempted to distance himself from the released emails. Granted this may an effort to make the best of a mess, but if there was nothing devious about them, why the flip flop?
Now you're just resorting to emotional outbursts.
You quote issues which are inhumane, morally wrong and most importantly unrelated and attempt to connect it to your statements . To quote a clique, comparing apple and oranges.
What's so indefensible about it? There are questionable statements made, but there are no other supporting evidence. You're basing all your conclusions from the emails alone.
Bring out the evidence that he doctored the numbers and i would hold my peace.
As prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook commented:
Righto, i fully agree. No legitimate scientists would do this.
Now, where is the evidence that this happened?
Its not like the science is unsettled. We know that the Sun is causing warming on Earth as well as on other planets. We know that global temperatures (whatever that means) has been falling (ironically from CRU data).
No we don't. It's just a theory brought forth.
If you have bothered to read furthur down your link you would have read that there is no connection between recent solar activity and global warming. NONE.
You know what the funny thing about your link on global temperatures is ? Written in 2006, It says that global temperature stopped between 1998-2005. Yet 2006 was the hottest year on record in the US.
The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
So do you know what's the funniest thing about the falling global temperature link you've sent? The writer basically took the period where the earth was actually experiencing the hottest periods since 1880s and took it to mean temperature isn't rising.
I'd reply to the rest later.
-
Melting Himalayan glaciers threaten
AFP - Sunday, December 6
KATHMANDU (AFP) - – More than a billion people in Asia depend on Himalayan glaciers for water, but experts say they are melting at an alarming rate, threatening to bring drought to large swathes of the continent.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, a 2,400-kilometre (1,500-mile) range that sweeps through Pakistan, India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, provide headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers, lifelines for the 1.3 billion people who live downstream.
But temperatures in the region have increased by between 0.15 and 0.6 degrees Celsius (0.27 and 1.08 degrees Fahrenheit) each decade for the last 30 years, dramatically accelerating the rate at which glaciers are shrinking.
As world leaders gather in Copenhagen this month for a crucial climate change summit, campaigners warn that some Himalayan glaciers could disappear altogether within a few decades.
"Scientists predict that most glaciers will be gone in 40 years as a result of climate change," said Prashant Singh, leader of environmental group WWF's Climate for Life campaign.
"The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people living in the Himalayan drainage systems who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a UN body regarded as the world's top authority on climate change, has warned Himalayan glaciers could "disappear altogether by 2035" and experts say the effects of global warming are already being felt in the region.
In Nepal and Bhutan, the receding glaciers have formed vast lakes that threaten to burst, devastating villages downstream.
Nepalese mountaineer and environmental campaigner Dawa Steven Sherpa said he first became interested in climate change after a close call when part of the Khumbu icefall above Everest base camp collapsed during an expedition in 2007.
Sherpa, who has scaled Everest three times, was walking on the glacier minutes before the collapse, and said his near miss alerted him to the dramatic toll that global warming is already taking on the Himalayas.
"Every time I go to the mountains the older Sherpas tell me this is the warmest year yet," Sherpa, who will take part in a special "summiteers' summit" in Copenhagen, told AFP.
"Initially it struck me how much more dangerous mountaineering would become. But then I realised it was much bigger than that. Entire villages could be wiped out if one of the glacial lakes burst."
In China, studies have shown that the rapid melting of the glaciers will result in an increase in flooding in the short term, state news agency Xinhua has reported.
In the longer term, it said, the continued retreat of glaciers would lead to a gradual decrease in river flows, severely affecting large parts of western China.
Experts say the resulting water shortages could hit the economic development of China and India, with potentially dire consequences for development in two of the world's most populated countries.
Even in low-lying Bangladesh, prone to severe floods, the IPCC has said rivers could run dry by the end of the century.
But research on the impact of global warming on the rugged and inaccessible Himalayas remains sparse, with the IPCC describing the region as a "blank spot" due to a lack of scientific data.
Even the experts disagree on the issue, with some arguing that some of the Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing.
India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh recently came under fire for denying that climate change was causing Himalayan glaciers to melt, citing research by the Indian geologist Vijay Kumar Raina.
The Nepal-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) has studied the Himalayan region for more than three decades and warns of an "urgent need" for more research on the impact of climate change.
"There are so many uncertainties surrounding where, how and to what extent the Himalayan region will be affected by climate change," ICIMOD climate change expert Arun Shrestha told AFP.
"But most experts accept that temperatures are changing, and this is happening more rapidly at altitude."
ICIMOD has warned that the current trends in glacial melt suggest flows in major Asian rivers including the Ganges, Indus and Yellow Rivers will be "substantially reduced" in the coming decades.
"The situation may appear to be normal in the region for several decades to come, and even with increased amounts of water available to satisfy dry season demands," it said in a recent report on the Himalayas.
"However, when the shortage arrives, it may happen abruptly, with water systems going from plenty to scarce in perhaps a few decades or less."
Shrestha added: "When the glaciers get hotter, you get more water, but there comes a point when the water will run out.
"It's like a bank balance, if you're not putting money in, you can't take it out." -
Climate Changes is still a very vague issue, these brought about scientist and peoples start to make claim about their finding just to be in the limelight and thereby become famous if they guessed correctly, otherwise those meetings and seminars are just good for some claim to be climate experts to have a wonderful holiday, dine and wine at the expense of each individual country taxpayer money. You got nothing to loose, because nobody knows what is really going on, if Angel7030 said next 50 years sentosa will be going to be underneath the sea, I maybe on a business class flight to Copenhagan living in a 6 stars hotel and enjoying my Chauteau Wine.
with caviar
-
ha ha ha
oh i forgot
freedom of speech
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
Climate Changes is still a very vague issue, these brought about scientist and peoples start to make claim about their finding just to be in the limelight and thereby become famous if they guessed correctly, otherwise those meetings and seminars are just good for some claim to be climate experts to have a wonderful holiday, dine and wine at the expense of each individual country taxpayer money. You got nothing to loose, because nobody knows what is really going on, if Angel7030 said next 50 years sentosa will be going to be underneath the sea, I maybe on a business class flight to Copenhagan living in a 6 stars hotel and enjoying my Chauteau Wine.
with caviar
all mode of transport would be disrupted and in a mess
so pls use you brain
sorry i forgot you have freedom of speech
-
Originally posted by I'm back:
all mode of transport would be disrupted and in a mess
so pls use you brain
sorry i forgot you have freedom of speech
i not kidding, until now, no country is committed in stopping carbon exposure to the air, tho each is saying this and that, there is still no policy and rules written, because all are selfish to commit, with dollars and cents at stake and a industrial economy to sustain a country wealth, who will take want to take first step?? They can go on and on saying this and that, and that this must reduce and that must take care, but who actually do it??? CHina??? US??? or the RUssian?? From the Doha to the Copenhagan, what have they achieved?? And more important, how much have they spent??Any big conglomorates or organisation can alway paid off a few reputable scientists to shown that climate change is not due to industrialisation, and when someone said that Glacier is melting, someone would said that new Glacier are form???? so where do we go from here?? The best job in the world is a job that give no solution but problems
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
i not kidding, until now, no country is committed in stopping carbon exposure to the air, tho each is saying this and that, there is still no policy and rules written, because all are selfish to commit, with dollars and cents at stake and a industrial economy to sustain a country wealth, who will take want to take first step?? They can go on and on saying this and that, and that this must reduce and that must take care, but who actually do it??? CHina??? US??? or the RUssian?? From the Doha to the Copenhagan, what have they achieved?? And more important, how much have they spent??Any big conglomorates or organisation can alway paid off a few reputable scientists to shown that climate change is not due to industrialisation, and when someone said that Glacier is melting, someone would said that new Glacier are form???? so where do we go from here?? The best job in the world is a job that give no solution but problems
do you know what is dohait have no connection with climate change
in short it's the end for every one - no escape