Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Silver Surfer

Pretending climate email leak isn't crisis won't make it go away...

16 posts in this topic

Alex Jones broke this over a week and a half ago, finally getting MSM attention ...

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws

Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

http://blogs.telegra...and-trade-laws/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex Jones broke this over a week and a half ago, finally getting MSM attention ...

Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws

Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

http://blogs.telegra...and-trade-laws/

Fantastic that now the truth about this whole thing is becoming common knowledge. Some of the personalities that figured they had a superior position on this farce and had the gall to have a go at me for indicating this outcome would at some time be forthcoming, are looking a bit of a joke now. I chuckle at you people now, oh how the ignorant do fall.

It appears that this time could be a pivotal one in the worlds history, and the end of make-believe nonsense that has dominated all facets of our lives from dodgy science to economics, society and dare I say to design.

Maybe now the world may find a way ahead with a new face of ethics, honesty and reality within a society that has now been sensitised to information but hopefully will seek truthful and transparent answers.

For real, and not make-believe, sustainability to exist, the decision making environment has to be based on honesty and real issues. We should all take the time to get over the mistakes in believing the nonsense, learn and get on with issues that really matter.

If the ETS, cap-and-trade, CPRS etc do get a foothold then we will be damned to a future of deceit and unsustainability and the the AGW fanatics will have won. I for one hope that does not occur, but if it does, every person who has championed this ridiculous notion has been complicit in every unfortunate and uncomfortable outcome that may befall us. And to that end, to those people who have slammed the AGW drivel down everyones throat, damn you all.

Rant over, looking forward to the next weeks, should be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AGW? Anti-Global Warming?

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, ie man-made.

The hilarious thing is that global warming does actually appear to be man made, by a bunch of so called climate scientist guys.... Is this perhaps the scientists' inside joke?

Thing is that actual global warming and climate change in the context of the current meaning, is not, and has not been occurring, and this has now been pretty clearly indicated by the recent events and the subsequent re-construction of the modelling and inspection of real data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the ETS, cap-and-trade, CPRS etc do get a foothold then we will be damned to a future of deceit and unsustainability and the the AGW fanatics will have won. I for one hope that does not occur, but if it does, every person who has championed this ridiculous notion has been complicit in every unfortunate and uncomfortable outcome that may befall us. And to that end, to those people who have slammed the AGW drivel down everyones throat, damn you all.

Rant over, looking forward to the next weeks, should be interesting.

You have been on the money it would seem in so far as vested interests have been dodgy about presenting the facts or at least not presenting all of the facts but this still does not clear up the science in the area.

I personnally cannot see how humans increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could do anything other than increase global temperatures, but agree that it appears that a more truthfull approach is needed to presenting all of the facts in an unbiased way. My fear is these emails may shift the agenda further from the science to the politics of global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always hoped the mad AGW (hehe) scientists weren't all for this political trading scheme scam. Polluters need compensation and trade so they can continue to pollute while the goal is to reduce pollution. :P

The reported changes to ocean pH scare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been on the money it would seem in so far as vested interests have been dodgy about presenting the facts or at least not presenting all of the facts but this still does not clear up the science in the area.

I personnally cannot see how humans increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could do anything other than increase global temperatures, but agree that it appears that a more truthfull approach is needed to presenting all of the facts in an unbiased way. My fear is these emails may shift the agenda further from the science to the politics of global warming.

Tom, I think 'the science' if you can call it that can be discounted as a deceptive sham. I would hope that the direction would now be more toward the real science for answers that has been very clearly articulated by many serious scientists not connected to the AGW fraternity. One Ian Plimer comes to mind as a local, but there are so, so many others.

The thing is that if there is no glabal warming other than totally normal phenomena, then the politics of AGW is null. The point is, there is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated, and this is now being revealed. Questions are now being asked of NZ's NIWA and even tentative questions toward the CSIRO. This has a lot of distance to run yet, lots of backtracking and many more deceptions to try and cover so many positions. A note to one personality on this forum; a P. Jones is even appearing to be massaging things to now reveal a medieval warm period and Little Ice Age. Bit late for that I would have thought.

The point clearly made by many is that anthropogenic CO2 is pretty much a non issue. There are far worse nasties and pollutants that are the issue.

Another good info source http://www.nzclimatescience.org/ for more local area info. Scroll down for some interesting reading.

I feel that when belief systems based on deception start to break down, everything becomes very transparent and the politics has little chance other to address realities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always hoped the mad AGW (hehe) scientists weren't all for this political trading scheme scam. Polluters need compensation and trade so they can continue to pollute while the goal is to reduce pollution. tongue.gif

The reported changes to ocean pH scare me.

In reality, the 'polluters' will move toward less pollution as time passes. There are already so many directions toward alternative energies that will limit pollution over time (forget CO2, null argument). Particulates are already far less than 30+ years ago, and they will reduce with technology advancement. BrissyChick, ask locals what Brissies air was like in the 60's.

CO2 is not the problem, other junk in the air is. That will kill you over time, that is what the focus should be.

Polluters pollute because you and me want energy and all the things that go with that. Contrary to popular beliefs, they are not actually in the primary business of polluting, but they are in the business of making money through providing the things that we all want.

I feel the main thrust will be toward the public demanding alternative energies that get around extortionate profit expectations of generators and other energy providers.

Ocean pH is another part of the AGW bundle, forget it. Oceans arent warming, nothing untoward happening. Fix the km2's of floating rubbish though, and toxic outfalls of effluent etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A note to one personality on this forum; a P.

God I hope that's me Artie ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God I hope that's me Artie happy.gif

No sorry SC, someone else.

The political events of today may now allow some relief from this creeping idiocracy that had taken over.

Bring on the games, the entirely mad (AGW) 'scientists' against the enlightened.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the entirely mad (AGW) 'scientists' against the enlightened.........

Can you point me to some evidence that:

  • CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
  • Man has not been a major contributor of CO2 over the last 100 years
  • The surface temperature of the earth has not warmed over the last 100 years

If not, may I suggest that your rather offensive comments be tempered in future?

To specific claims of yours:

1]

There is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated

Are you serious? How much have you read on the matter? Can you name a book or a peer-reviewed paper you have read by an author or authors who do believe AGW to be a cause of warming (Hint: There are thousands to choose from)? Then can you explain how that peer-reviewed paper or book has been completely and utterly falsified?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you point me to some evidence that:

  • CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
  • Man has not been a major contributor of CO2 over the last 100 years
  • The surface temperature of the earth has not warmed over the last 100 years

If not, may I suggest that your rather offensive comments be tempered in future?

To specific claims of yours:

1] There is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated

Are you serious?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Is it threatenening as portrayed by the AGW camp? Clearly no. The key word is belief in the above. Show the real and un-massaged/un-modified/un-selective data, I suggest.

Man has been a major contributor of CO2 along with all other naturally occurring sources.

The surface temperature of the Earth has warmed over the last 250 years that is why it is no longer Ice-Age cold, naturally.

Your point is? (I am assuming your are speaking generally and for others so I am addressing it generally not specifically at your good self)

Yes I am serious. Are you?

Offensive comments? Please enlighten me since you are directing that at me.

I have read extensively, and I think in light of current events highlighting peer-review in this particular subject area, the greater mass of information that is freely accessible and abundantly available provides a very clear description of the wider aspect of the subject. Peer-reviewed papers based on manipulated or doctored data, or with a risk of such are essentially worthless. That applies whether it is within the arena of AGW or any other science. Just because AGW and Climate Change 'science' is the subject, does not make it immune to the same robust disciplines and scrutiny that apply to all other science, or any peer-reviewed subject matter.

I think that those who support the AGW position, and especially the extrapolation of that to 'Catastrophic Climate Change' need to substantiate their position. This is being imposed on the public not the other way around.

I would invite you to identify a completely unbiased, un-doctored book or paper that has measurable and factually based data derived from consistent and reliable sources above and beyond scrutiny that could support an undeniable position on catastrophic or even threatening effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenically forced Climate Change as a result of CO2 derived from human actions.

I would invite you also to provide factual un-doctored or manipulated data to prove that warming has in fact occurred consistently over the past 10 years in line with accepted projections.

The onus probandi is again on those who suggest what we can see is not what exists..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Man has been a major contributor of CO2 along with all other naturally occurring sources.

Then it is impossible to claim that there has been no man-made contribution to warming. Agree? You concede that man has released gasses and that these gasses cause warming?

Offensive comments? Please enlighten me since you are directing that at me.

I should think that was obvious. Calling yourself "the enlightened" and serious scientists "entirely mad".

Leave your zealotry at the door and we can have a chat.

Now:

To specific claims of yours:

1]

There is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated

Are you serious? How much have you read on the matter? Can you name a book or a peer-reviewed paper you have read by an author or authors who do believe AGW to be a cause of warming (Hint: There are thousands to choose from)? Then can you explain how that peer-reviewed paper or book has been completely and utterly falsified?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then it is impossible to claim that there has been no man-made contribution to warming. Agree? You concede that man has released gasses and that these gasses cause warming?

I should think that was obvious. Calling yourself "the enlightened" and serious scientists "entirely mad".

Leave your zealotry at the door and we can have a chat.

Now:

I have edited the post above.

I do not consider myself 'the enlightened' but I would suggest that if one is exposed to a wider appreciation of a subject than confined within a tightly confined mindset, then one could consider ones self 'enlightened'. Take in generally, it is meant that way.

Serious scientists arent mad! Are you crazy. Serious scientists are who have developed our world and will help keep developing this world and the human experience. However, this does not suggest that there are scientists who could be clinically or ethically described as 'mad'. Scientists that make stuff up can hardly be described as serious scientists.

I am not a zealot. I am passionate about truth and honesty, and I despise deceipt and lies. I am ethical and responsible, and I care about the world I live in and the freedom and choices that all people have a right to enjoy. If that is a zealot, then I am a zealot.

But to call you a name back, are you a Deciever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to call you a name back, are you a Deciever?

No. Because my spelling is better than that, just for starters. :D

I thought you wanted to argue about the facts, not ad hominem? Let's do that, shall we?

Back to my previous post. Regardless of what you previously have written on this thread and elsewhere, are you now conceding that the world has warmed, and man has contributed to that warming via the release of CO2*?

And given your failure to name a peer-reviewed paper or published book that you have read and your failure to detail how same has been falsified by the 'crisis' of the OP, are you prepared to concede that you cannot name one?

* Note: This is my definition of AGW.

Edit: Best not to go back to posts far up the list and edit them extensively - it makes any discussion hard to progress. I notice now that you are confusing the burden of proof, in your heavily edited post. Let me explain:

The onus is on those whose proposition is that global warming exists and is partially man-made to provide evidence that global warming exists and is partially man-made.

I'm skeptical on that front and open-minded, except for where the evidence is overwhelming.

The onus is on you, having claimed that "global warming and climate change in the context of the current meaning, is not, and has not been occurring" to provide evidence that global warming and climate change in the context of the current meaning, is not, and has not been occurring.

The onus is on you, having claimed that "There is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated" to show that there is not one scrap of evidence or data that any of the AGW/Climate Change belief is substantiated.

If you're not prepared to provide such evidence, you have no leg to stand on. See, I'm skeptical when it comes to the effects of AGW. But I'm more skeptical (given my research and reading) of people who claim that AGW is not occurring!

More precisely, I absolutely dispute that the following is required in order support of anything I have written in this thread, and would welcome an explanation from you as to how you derived that this evidence is required to support anything I have written:

I would invite you to identify a completely unbiased, un-doctored book or paper that has measurable and factually based data derived from consistent and reliable sources above and beyond scrutiny that could support an undeniable position on catastrophic or even threatening effects of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Anthropogenically forced Climate Change as a result of CO2 derived from human actions.

Your edited post seems to be far from the position you started at in this and other threads. Again, I'll ask you to state clearly your position. Perhaps edit the following two statements:

  • I do/do not (choose one only) believe that the surface of the earth has warmed, and that at least part of this warming is caused by humans releasing CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.
  • The so-called Climate-gate scandal does/does not (choose one only) change my position on this matter.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0