HARRY_READ_ME: New bombshell document on global warming leaked!

I found this on youtube and found it quite amusing.

I'm sure others will too, well maybe not all.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by phrig]

reply to post by airlouche


In a couple weeks representatives from over 150 countries will be meeting in Copenhagen to try and hammer out a new treaty on "reducing global warming." In reality, it seems that this meeting has another agenda of forming a platform for global governance, which would include a world-wide carbon tax scheme. So, this whole "global warming" scheme is a political ploy to give a pretext for implementing the New World Order spoken of by world leaders over the last decade.

Like Freeman Dyson says in the videos above, it's not that CO2 levels aren't possibly elevated, rather it's what NWO leaders are saying about it (global warming), and what false "solutions" they are putting forth.

I love the way he points out that surface temperatures of the earth are impossible to know unless we measure the surface temperature all over the oceans, which we are not doing. This means the surface temperatures they do have (which are in terrible shape as this post shows) are bad input to computer models, which are themselves invalid because they don't take critical factors into account such as the ground vegetation of the earth, and this means the computer models are completely useless, and this is all just one big sideshow with a big political agenda aimed at putting the world into a New World Order straight-jacket.

Hope that answers your question.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

You did not answer those questions and you still haven't!!

You said it was "obvious" that the emails had been "added to". This implies that you thought their was something damaging in them.
Some emails have been confirmed as genuine, yet NONE have been confirmed as "added to". So now your excuse is it's "plausible" they have been doctored? What a joke.

I've answered the questions as an opinion, and therefore my response so far has been adequate. You, and others can continue to cherry pick comments and quotes from the emails, but you have nothing in response in terms of proof of scientists faking data. The emails didn't get posted online until a few days after the hack, therefore giving the hackers plenty of time to doctor them. Even if they aren't doctored, I'm still not going to jump to conclusions, and "assume" scientists have been faking data all over the world, even if they have in this one institute - and so far all I hear is "barking of dogs" rather than anyone actually digging for real evidence.

The climate scientists have already said the data at CRU is similar to data already released in the states, and there's no reason to question this until we see the data for ourselves to confirm or disprove this.

What about the other institutes with data supporting man-made global warming, and satellite data showing antarctic ice shelf depreciation rapidly increasing? I still want to hear alternate explanation, besides pathetic & wimpy excuses that it's all natural processes, when you cannot back up that theory. The climate in the arctic regions is changing more rapidly than at any other time in recorded history, and even if you can suggest a slight doubt to me in the anthropic global warming science (which nobody has yet) - I'm not willing to take a chance, so I can be taxed less.

What a complete selfish way of living to think of your own pocket before thinking of the planet that gave life to you!

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by john124
Already answered those questions ages ago.

It's plausible that some of the emails have been doctored. Enjoy trying to fit emails as "evidence" around your conspiracy - you won't get very far!

It is also possible that you are nothing more than a mindless zombie who the aliens brainwashed for their evil plan to take over the world.... Good luck proving otherwise....

As I said - you haven't got very far, and you never will with that kind of attitude. I've seen you post so many comments on ATS about this issue, much more than the average user such as myself, and almost every post is an attack on climate science or denials! When do you get the time to actually study the science of global warming?!

Do you prefer to fantasise over people's personal emails, rather than be a scientist? as you pretend to know-it-all!

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

At 8:37pm EvolvedMinistry posted this:

Originally posted by EvolvedMinistry
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

 

You haven't shown any proof. As a matter of fact, that's a glorified version of a pop up book. You like those don't ya!!!

Your argument is about as weak as any person I have ever seen. I provide tons of evidence, and you provide comic books. LOL. Bit off a little more than you could chew...didn't ya???

Like I said before, if your schema and your ego can't handle the information provided...And I know you haven't read one single word, then you will come up with any reason to deny the proof right in front of your eyes. First you claimed that I had no evidence backing my opinion, and now that you see that I do, you're trying to provide one very WEAK source of info to back your poorly put together theory!!!

Thanks for being a participant in my experiment.

I have no more time for you. My girlfriend wants to get laid, so, I'll leave you to the good fight that you're losing horribly.

At 8:51pm he posted this:

"reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Great link by the way...It doesn't work. Just sits and loads. POP UP BOOK CENTRAL.

This stuff is more of YOUR SPEED. That technical stuff is just too much and probably makes your brain hurt.

www.planetark.com...

mikemccormack.blogspot.com...

scicom.ucsc.edu...

Phytoplankton on the rise???? LOL. Your information is ridiculous. That article must have been in the 90's. You might want to get something more, "UP TO DATE."

www.oceanleadership.org...

Okay...so now, I've really got to go. So, while you dig up more pop up books, I'll be in sexual bliss with my extremely gorgeous girlfriend. You can continue this because I know you have nothing better to do. BYE NOW!!!"

HIS GIRLFRIEND IS OBVIOUSLY STILL IN NEED!

I'm not even convinced this guy has graduated high school yet.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by abefrohman]

guys/gals..... we all have personal lives (well most of us do...), so just stick to the issue 't pls - I don't need to waste time reading who's shagging who tonight.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

That was kind of my point, but I thought I'd rather mock him than just point out how childish it was.

Yes I realize my response was childish as well, but I enjoyed it very much.

Originally posted by john124
I've answered the questions as an opinion, and therefore my response so far has been adequate.

Suprise suprise. Deflection again. I would ask you to quote were you even posted your opinion (cos I know you didn't), but I know you won't so don't bother. Whatever it takes to keep the lie going, eh?

You, and others can continue to cherry pick comments and quotes from the emails, but you have nothing in response in terms of proof of scientists faking data.

Maybe not, but there is copious amounts of evidence that they conspired to delete relevant information, bar opposing views from journals they controlled, bar unwelcome comments on a supposedly neutral website, bad data handling practices, conspiring to deceive, even cheering the death of a scientist with opposing views. But that's not enough for you is it. If AGW sceptical scientists had done these things, you guys would be all over it.

The climate scientists have already said the data at CRU is similar to data already released in the states, and there's no reason to question this until we see the data for ourselves to confirm or disprove this.

What about the other institutes with data supporting man-made global warming, and satellite data showing ntarctic ice shelf depreciation rapidly increasing?

You mean like NIWA? Who have been exposed as adjusting data to show a warming trend without adequate explanation? I posted that earlier, but you may have overlooked it since it didn't conform with what you believe. It's not just NIWA either. NASA GISS are in the process of getting taken to court. Japan weather authorities are going to have some answering to do also. And what about Antarctica?

I assume you mean from this thread. Hears a snippet from the article they use.

The margin or error, they cautioned, is almost as large as the estimate, meaning ice loss could be a little as a few billion tonnes or more than 100.

Hmm.... not very accurate, especially considering previous studies had found the East Antarctic was gaining mass.

I still want to hear alternate explanation, besides pathetic & wimpy excuses that it's all natural processes, when you cannot back up that theory.

Neither can you back up your theory. You've seen how useless the data is in support of AGW. Just look at this thread, and what software engineers have said, and you should have seen how useless the models are, which is basically all AGW has got (along with baseless scaremongering to fool the ignorant).
GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out

But that doesn't stop the politicians from saying that the science is settled does it? Cos they know they can get away with it without giving any evidence.

What a complete selfish way of living to think of your own pocket before thinking of the planet that gave life to you!

Here, IMO, is where you have shown the most ignorance. Some how you have equated disagreeing with AGW theories, to not caring about the planet. I ask you, how is a carbon trading economy going to fix any of these problems?

Heavy metal poisoning of waterways, extensive land use change (which does affect local weather, like at Kilimanjaro), over fertilisation wreaking havoc with natural eco systems, contaminated drinking water supplies, extensive commercial fishing wiping out marine life, limited crop variabilility (thanks, monsanto), changing waterway flows destroying previous eco systems, the list goes on. For that matter, how will a carbon trading economy help climate change!?

Yet you think that because you have fallen for AGW fallacies, that you are some how better than everyone else. Billions of dollars being syphoned off to a faux problem, when that money could be used to fix real problems, with real solutions. Who's really the selfish one?

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


FYI, a few, or a few hundred billion tons is still a loss.

not very accurate, especially considering previous studies had found the East Antarctic was gaining mass.

I agree the error is high, but it's still a loss both sides of the error, and just because previous studies produced different results - doesn't mean we ignore it.

Suprise suprise. Deflection again. I would ask you to quote were you even posted your opinion (cos I know you didn't), but I know you won't so don't bother. Whatever it takes to keep the lie going, eh?

Where did I state that it wasn't an opinion? I'm not deflecting, I'm simply stating my thoughts. It seems you are deflecting the issue away from the fact that you cannot find any evidence against the science of man-made global warming in either the emails, or elsewhere.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by john124]

Originally posted by john124

What a complete selfish way of living to think of your own pocket before thinking of the planet that gave life to you!

this just in, straight from the horse's mouth.

now replace 'planet' with 'god', d'Uh. maybe he did think of the planet and concluded that razing the amazon forest to grow fuel crops was a bad thing. maybe he just didn't like things like famine, who knows. i for one wouldn't condemn anyone just because he'd rather want to see a meal for everyone than a couple of bn.$$$$ to post-capitalistic conglomerates at everyone else's expense.

to the contrary, caring for people, life and the planet (these are not antithetical as far as i can see, now prove me wrong if you want) is vastly better than supporting an ideological movement which makes people feel (self-) righteous and tricks them into mistaking their own vanity for selflessness. just a thought.

Originally posted by john124
Where did I state that it wasn't an opinion?

You didn't. You said

Originally posted by john124
Already answered those questions ages ago.

You had not answered them. You did not state it was opinion. You did not state your reason for your opinion.

You LIED!

Deflect away, keep digging.
You have failed to provide any relevant information, while criticising others for doing just that. That is what's called hypocrisy. If you really want to do some research, try:
Peer Reviewed Scientific Research That Refutes Anbthropogenic Global Warming and More. or 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

reply to post by downisreallyup

Oh, since when was Indiana University not reputable??? Does that mean if I don't get a degree that I wasn't missing out on anything in the first place??? I guess owing upward to $50,000 for my education thus far was all in vain...all because some "guy" on ATS claims that Indiana University is not reputable. DO YOU HAVE PROOF FOR SUCH CLAIMS??? LOL. AHHHH that's good stuff. The depths people will go in order protect their schemas!!!

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

AHHH YES...the "grow up tactic." That gets used alot by people pretending to be "Above" a situation that they are themselves...participating in. Need I say more???

And, how was your solution of attack any better than my solution of defense??? OUCH!!!

Thanks (or should I say, not thanks), but I don't need advice from a guy who's wading in the same cesspool that I am. C-YA!!!

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Wow...a planetark article, a BLOG, and another article NONE of which prove the "massive deads of phytoplankton by oil spills which are causing Global Warming"....

BTW, harmful algal blooms occur when there is an increase in nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) I wonder what those elements have to do with CO2....

[edit on 25-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Wow...a planetark article, a BLOG, and another article NONE of which prove the "massive deads of phytoplankton by oil spills which are causing Global Warming"....

BTW, harmful algal blooms occur when there is an increase in nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) I wonder what those elements have to do with CO2....

[edit on 25-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Yep, a planetark article and blog. I posted that because the technical stuff was confusing you. If you remember correctly, I said that the planetark and blog was posted because its more of your speed. That's the kind of crap that you would post thinking it was reputable information. The funny thing is, you were so set on proving me wrong on this post, you didn't see how I made a stab at your intellect. SLOW, very slow. I provided you with great sources earlier of which your pride would not allow you to read. You were so busy typing in an effort to save face, that you didn't even review the info.

As I said before, first you claimed that I didn't have information...boy that was a mistake. And then when you found out that I did, you did exactly what I said that you would. You avoided the info, claimed that it wasn't from reputable sources, and defended your bruised ego to protect your predefined schema. Go check it out, all you have to do is trace back our conversation to where you and I first met. I'm getting all starry eyed and nostalgic here.

And here's some advice for future argument endeavors. Don't try to call people out and tell them that they can't back their argument because there are people who can bury your little behind in so much information that you'll be asphyxiated in 5 seconds flat. Yep...believe it or not, you're not the top dog of the argument world, and neither am I. There is always someone better, so, if that's what you come to ATS for, you might want to improve on your rusty skills.

But you know what was the most hilarious aspect? You actually tried to levy support from other ATS posters who share your same schema because you no longer had a viable argument that you could present on your own. I know its hard to stand on your own two feet, but, you better learn now because life gets much rougher than this. LOL. You literally rested your entire argument based on the fact that you believed that I had no information to back my "OPINION," which, as you now know but won't admit, is highly substantiated by thoroughly researched scientific findings.

Here's another little OBSERVATION on your lack of argument skills. READ THIS CAREFULLY BECAUSE THIS IS KEY...You never even looked at the posts and the information that I made to see if you were wrong. You just sat on a soapbox and continued to ask for more information even though you had been provided loads that you hadn't even reviewed. You know how i know this??? Your response time. Each one of those articles would have taken at least 20 minutes or more to read and thoroughly understand. Your responses back to me were happening in roughly 2 minutes intervals of each of my posts. And judging from the speed that I've observed in you, that would have just been long enough for you to have typed up your response and hit the reply button. Its all documented in the history of this particular thread. If you were a smart ATS'er, you would have known that the date and time of every post is recorded and left there for the world to scrutinize. OUCH. In other words, you never had an intention of looking at the info that you chastised me initially for not providing. All you were doing was protecting the ego...

If I hadn't called it out so perfectly and then watched how you interacted step, by step, I wouldn't have much of a case here...would I? Like I said, you were my little experiment. Its funny because I told you in the beginning how this would all play out and you still fell head first into it.

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


This only shows how the reasoning powers of some individuals needs improving. I never said Indiana Univ. was not reputable. My brother went there and got a good education... GO HOOSIERS!

What I asked you to do was provide some well-worded, summarized, backed-up research from a reputable university, and I gave you an example of information provided by ANOTHER reputable university as an example. Nowhere did I say that Indiana was not reputable, but since the only information you provided was password protected from anyone except alumni, that doesn't do anyone else much good, now does it? Even though that University is supported by public funds, you have to go through special hoops to actually read it, and undoubtedly it will be written in high-minded techno-speak, which is perfectly fine for those who are trained in that particular lingo, but it isn't fine for the general public.

That is why I provided an example of a university that understands these basic (and simple) principles. To show how they provided a nice summary with visual depictions of the information - which is something that all corporations and governments do at their board meetings and presentations.

I'm growing weary of treating you with respect, which I have done, even if I haven't agreed with you. I have not called you names, even if I have asked you to stop using techniques of tactical-argumentation, rather than open and honest debate.

If only you could stick to the facts, with point and counter-point, it would do wonders at proving that the $50,000 you spent at higher education actually did some good, making you wiser and more articulate than the average street thug...and NO, I did not just call you a street thug, so don't be tempted to counter with that false deflection. I simply challenged you to prove you are better than a street thug by discussing a matter intelligently, sticking to the CURRENT point on the table, avoiding ad hominem attacks, and backing up your arguments with real facts, figures, verifiable quotes, and logical arguments. If I didn't think you were capable of doing that, I wouldn't even bother mentioning it.

If your university doesn't have an easy-to-discuss summary of their AGW conclusions, then perhaps you could be "man enough" to find one from some other place, and put that forth if you wish. But, when the subject comes up about the recent cooling trend, defend your position by providing data that is verifiable. In this post (not the original entry, but further down) I have put forth data showing that temperatures have remained steady here in New Zealand, even though our government version of "CRU" has also falsified results just like England's has. Why don't you do the same?

Why can't people discuss these matters in a calm and rational way? WHY?

Originally posted by IconoclasticTalamasca
reply to post by EvolvedMinistry

 

Frack, dude! This is getting reGoddamdiculous. I have read this nonsense for the last coupe of pages and, I must say, you are doing an astoundingly good job at dodging the issue and bottle necking the thread. This is borderline trolling.

Since I am a fair person, I read through all of the links you posted with patience and understanding. I did not see one single thing linking your oil spill rants to global warming. Environment disasters? Yes. A cause of global warming? Specifically, AGW?? You have posted no such evidence. You continue to post the same thing wrapped in a different web site.

Please show me something that shows oil spills linked to AWG. If not, move on.

Really, you went through every single article??? Well then...you don't mind if I give you a pop quiz...DO YOU? At what level or percentage of Carbon Monoxide is considered to be dangerous if there is not enough Oxygen to counterbalance its effects per square cubic inch of air? Also, what are the actual side effects (other than death) that oil typically has on Phytoplankton (the earth's largest source of oxygen)? Because, this information was in THOSE articles, and they do tell how oil spills are SPECIFICALLY linked to global warming. Again, like I told ELECTRIC UNIVERSE, some of those articles take over 20+ minutes to read and thoroughly understand. I'll wait for your answers to the quiz.

So, if you're being fair, I can't really tell. And if you read those articles, you wouldn't have just made this ridiculous post to me. Also, you made a very charged attack and then claimed that I WAS TROLLING or had, "posted no such evidence of proof." That phrase makes you sound "really official" by the way. Something tells me that you've read that phrase so many times here on ATS that you're fooled into believing that it wields some sort of power and felt that it would actually affect me. And since THIS IS a global warming thread, I've stayed very much "ON TOPIC," especially since Global Warming entails several different hosts of environmental issues. You sir, are the one who has been off topic and made a clear attempt here at bottlenecking.

NOW...You post "such evidence" that claims that you actually read the articles, and then try to ask a question that remains..."ON TOPIC" in a civil and direct manner. The only reason I took my approach with ELECTRIC UNIVERSE was because he accused me of having no information...and very much like him, you never read the information to begin with.

C-YA!!!

reply to post by EvolvedMinistry


You know EM, I really think you are misunderstanding what's going on here. If you review the thread, you will see that everyone here saw clearly that you were dragging issues into the discussion that did not really belong.

The AGW argument is that CO2 "EMISSIONS" are the primary cause for the GREENHOUSE EFFECT, which is the PRIMARY CAUSE of global warming, which they are now attempting to call CLIMATE CHANGE.

You brought up OIL SPILLS as a major contributor to global warming, and even if this is true (which I don't think it is), that was not the point of the thread, nor is it the claim of the AGW "science" as put forth by the U.N.

People in this thread were taking exception to you carrying the discussion off in a tangent that had nothing to do with discussing the information contained in the main post. You did not address the issues in the HARRY_READ_ME post. I doubt seriously whether you read the document like I did, and if you had read it, would you have understood it?

Your responses in this thread have not served you or Indiana Univ. well, because it brings into serious question your ability to stay on topic and to argue with intelligence. Hopefully that is not indicative of most Indiana graduates. You still have time to redeem yourself however, if only you had the humility and desire to do so.

Address the points sir... address the points put forth in this thread. If you want to introduce other points like oil spills, start your own thread and see if anyone responds.

Peace!

The IPCC and its AWG fraud are going down like the titanic and some determined fanatics will continue to play on even as the icy waters (even colder due to global cooling) swirl around their knees.

How embarassing for them.

reply to post by downisreallyup


There was tons of non-password protected information there. Maybe you should go back and take a look. I posted pages of stuff simply because I was aware that people would not be able to read the "scholarly information" that is password protected from our libraries.

I made a point to post stuff that couldn't be accessed by the "public at large" in order to point out that real information isn't made available by the MSM. Sometimes you have to go outside of the conventions and do your own REAL research through real channels (i.e. EBSCO, factiva, Google Scholar, etc). And sometimes, if you want real information, you have to pay for it. There are things out there that isn't offered for free for a very practical reason. By the way, all of those sources are cross referenced by several different Universities by professors from thousands of different colleges. I.U. was merely the method that I accessed that information. Unfortunately, since most people get their news, thoughts, and realities from watered down sources such as CNN or Fox, its important to show that there is plenty of information that exists outside of what the corporate world chooses to release.

The main issue here is this...Electric Universe claimed that I was a "know nothing" that could not provide supporting evidence for my "opinion." If you don't believe me, you should really go back to see where this first started. I told him to do "his own research" because I was sick of doing it for others who merely want to argue as opposed to learn. He said that I was using this as a crutch because I had no evidence to offer. I then told him that even if I provided the evidence, he would merely ignore it and say that the sources weren't reputable and that had I provided "no proof." So, in order to show him that I knew where this argument was going, I provided tons of evidence and research, and, he responded exactly as I had predicted. It was almost like performing the perfect experiment where the results coincided with the theory.

So, I have nothing against you, other than the fact that you were helping to fight a battle for a guy (electric universe) who decided to start one. I provided very valuable evidence performed by the scientific community. I even showed him that the theory of global warming was so strong that there have been summits, treaties, and genuine attempts to reduce carbon emissions because of the danger that it poses. I highly doubt ALL of the world leaders would come together in an attempt to address something that they considered was only a "hoax." And, as it is, it still seems to be a "hoax," but only in the minds of the ignorant, or people who don't seem to have access to the same information that scholars, insiders, or politicians have access to. Since the news is dedicated to a primarily "soft news" format that is geared towards the "market approach," you won't find anything stunningly scientific or meaningful in everyday viewing.

Many will claim that GLOBAL WARMING is just another way for politicians to leverage more control against the masses, however, if you remember correctly, it wasn't long ago that those who spoke of "Global Warming" were merely considered "conspiracy theorists." The Bush Administration used to vehemently deny the existence of Global Warming and paid thousands of scientists to debunk it. Eventually though, many of those scientists turned against it because of "supporting evidence" until even the Bush Administration began to recognize its validity. So, what does that tell you?

And yes...were talking about Global Warming. Global Warming encompasses a host of environmental situations which contributes to its existence. Oil spills are a contributing factor of environmental disasters and has been linked to Global Warming. I'll explain this one more time in a very simplistic manner. Oil spills kill phytoplankton. Phytoplankton is currently the world's largest provider of Oxygen. When there isn't enough Oxygen to counterbalance the amount of CO2 that is smothering the planet and causing rising temperatures, then a warming trend will ensue. And according to recent studies, the world's content of Phytoplankton is drastically dropping. Many of the links and the pasted articles that I posted addresses this.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]

reply to post by downisreallyup


And since you came into this thread midway between, you obviously aren't aware of how this conversation took direction. It makes me wonder whether your ability to follow an argument is actually intact as well because anyone who is thorough will go to the beginning to get an overlay of why the conversation turned in this direction. So, don't try to compare me to other Indiana University graduates. If you are trying to make a sweeping generalization about the entirety of a University population according to one person that YOU disagree with, then, not only is that a short sided perspective of prejudice, you can group your brother into the same category of weakness the you seem to perceive in me.

The fact that you told me that you brother went to Indiana University didn't fare well for you in your attempt at an insult.


[edit on 26-11-2009 by EvolvedMinistry]