It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What If Climategate was Cancergate?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   

December 6th, 2009
Senator Barbara Boxer has said that the e-mails supposedly stolen from a computer at the Climatic Research Unit in the UK should lead to prosecution of the hacker who did it. This rather obvious attempt to divert attention from the content of the emails, to the manner in which the e-mails were obtained, led my wife to make an interesting observation.

What if the intercepted emails uncovered medical researchers discussing the fudging and hiding of cancer research data, and trying to interfere with the peer review process to prevent other medical researchers from getting published? There would be outrage from all across the political spectrum. Scientists behaving badly while the health of people was at stake would not be defended by anyone.

So why should it be any different with Climategate? Unnecessary restrictions on (or price increases for) energy use could needlessly kill millions of people who are already poverty stricken. Cancer research affects many of us, but energy costs affect ALL of us.

www.drroyspencer.com...

Since the AGW fans in the website love to claim that the AGW denialists "are like the official story of 9/11" let's tell the truth about the AGW scam.. It is the new "Reich"... the one which will bring suffering for all, including Earth.

Haven't the AGW proponents learned that atmospheric CO2 is PLANT FOOD?...

Haven't they learned that the optimal levels used in greenhouses to increase harfest up to 50% is 1,200 ppm too 1,500ppm, meanwhile right now Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels are at 380ppm.


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The Earth is CO2 DEPRIVED. It is a known fact that despite deforestation in the southern hemisphere, and other third world countries, the northern hemisphere, and the green biomass of the oceans has been INCREASING.....

Earth has become GREENER, and will become GREENER with MORE atmospheric CO2....

But since the Globalists have stated many times part of their goal is "depopulation" what better way to depopulate the world than to restrict food harvests by lowering the levels of atmospheric CO2?

There are even plans to "sequester atmospheric CO2", and I have been in contact with my Senate representative trying to convince him that this is a really bad idea because they want to implement such a plan.

Atmospheric CO2 is not the problem, and it is not pollution/smog.

If you search for what "smog" is you will find that NOWHERE is CO2 included, the real pollutants are other gases.

The following is directly from wikipedia, the leftists number 1 source for news, and information, which also happens to be rigged....but anyway...


Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

Photochemical smog
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)


All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.


..........

en.wikipedia.org...


Where is CO2 in that list?.... it is NOWHERE simply because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT, despite the EPA claiming the contrary.

Now, who will benefit from taxing to death a gas which ALL LIVING CREATURES EXHALE?.....



[edit on 8-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Okay Electric Universe, excellent analogy. I would like to point out(now that I can) that their is a little trick to make your "plants" grow really well.

Dry Ice is solid CO2. When not submitted to pressure it sublimates directly to CO2. This is a little trick known to people that grow their "plants" in enclosed areas.

It is amazing that people cannot see the correlation between CO2 and the fact that it is necessary for plants.

Historical records show that CO2 levels of preindustrial times show that the levels were same as today. But manipulation by the scientists to prove their theories, so they can receive money from TPTB to institute another Tax and Control frame work, is fraud of the highest nature.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
The environmental nut jobs might want to take a look at China and see just what the costs of their "green" technologies are. Poisoning vast areas of wilderness for the sake of "eco friendly" light bulbs is the epitome of hypocrisy. Not that many of them will want to admit that mind you. Add to that the fact that China has said that they cannot actually mine enough rare earth materials to support the growing demand for these "environmentally friendly" [cough] technologies and, well, you'd have to be an idiot not to see what's coming.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Your wife is a wise woman. But it's all too late. I'm sorry but the Copenhagen Treaty will be signed. Obama will sign it, and America will be no more. America will not be there to defend you in the future. We are finished, but thank you all for caring.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by factbeforefiction]



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
If there was a "cancergate" scenario, I believe that if the causes of cancer were in the documents, nobody would believe it.

It would be so simple to understand that people would laugh at it.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by factbeforefiction
 


There will be no treaty signed. The only thing that will come out of Copenhagen is an outline and a bunch of "promises". So just chill out.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Haven't the AGW proponents learned that atmospheric CO2 is PLANT FOOD?...

Haven't they learned that the optimal levels used in greenhouses to increase harfest up to 50% is 1,200 ppm too 1,500ppm, meanwhile right now Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels are at 380ppm.


Tell that to the planet Venus, it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and it's experiencing what planetary science calls a "runaway greenhouse" effect. Just thought I'd point that out, lol. One thing Earth has is the ability to self-regulate it's atmosphere. While CO2 is naturally pumped into the air, nature has it's "carbon sinks", vast tracts of forests and oceans that absorb CO2, and release oxygen. There's more to be concerned about than just how much CO2 we pump out, there's also the massive deforestation going on. It's a one-two punch, we pump out excessive amounts of pollution, while removing the natural mechanisms that "scrub" it from out atmosphere. I mean, let's call it what it is - pollution. When you call it "CO2" it just sounds so plant-friendly. Mixed in with all that CO2 is even less earth-friendly junk.

You still have to rely on the science, not the rhetoric. Everything these global-warming scientists did should be put under a microscope and reviewed. I think a lot of people see the researchers fudging their data as a ploy to foist "cap and trade" on businesses. "Cap and trade" is nothing more than a scam to allow heavy polluters to keep polluting while buying carbon credits off other companies, an invention by the government to white-wash the problem while profiting at the same time.

You can summarize the "greenhouse gas" problem succinctly:

The Earth is an enclosed eco-system.
CO2 released naturally is absorbed by "carbon sinks", the ocean and forests.
Our sun also has it's cool periods and warm periods which affects us. We're currently at a low ebb in the suns output.
When the balance does tip, naturally or not, you'll see disrupted weather patterns and rising ocean levels. What are the extremes? Ice age? Waterworld? Can't say either appeals to me.

Now apply Man's contribution: we release CO2 among other pollutants.
We remove vast tracts of forests (carbon sinks).

Even if we're not the cause of "global warming", or "climate change", we're still having an effect. The question is and always has been, how much of an effect, and where is the tipping point - where our contribution causes a rapid climate change?

One other point, volcanism does release CO2, which I've seen some people here using as an argument that volcanoes contribute to global warming - but consider, volcanoes also release a lot of sun-blocking ash when they erupt, in fact major eruptions in the past have led to severe winters or even mini ice ages. If the sunlight can't reach the earth, then it doesn't matter how much CO2 was released in the eruption, and by the time the soot and ash has settled, our carbon sinks have done their job, and absorbed the CO2. Of course I'm not saying this goes on with all volcanoes, but certainly for the major eruptions.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Tell that to the planet Venus, it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and it's experiencing what planetary science calls a "runaway greenhouse" effect. Just thought I'd point that out, lol.


That's another misconception people don't know much about. First of all CO2 is the main gas on Venus, as it's atmosphere consists of about 96.5% CO2, meanwhile on Earth atmospheric CO2 is about 0.038%.

On contrast Venus' nitrogen content in the atmosphere is only about 3.5%, but since it's atmosphere is 93 times denser than that of Earth the total content of nitrogen in Venus' atmosphere is four times higher than that of Earth.

Even if mankind never, ever stopped releasing CO2 we would never even come close to increasing the atmospheric level of CO2 to even 1%....

Mankind will never live long enough to do this, as tens of thousands of years, if not more, will go by before we ever get even close to increasing atmospheric CO2 to 1%....and a lot happens in tens of thousands of years...

So, again this other claim by the AGW proponents that "but we might make Earth like Venus" is nothing more than an exageration, and a downright lie concocted by the AGW zombies, I mean fans...

Second of all there are other reasons why Venus is so hot. One, is because it's atmosphere is 93 times thicker than that of Earth, and two, it's crust is thinner than the crust of Earth, which allows it's internal core heat to reach the surface.

The atmosphere of Venus is filled of opaque clouds composed of sulfur dioxide/sulfuric Acid which are the clouds we are all familiar with, and they are the reason why Venus' surface can't be observed from Earth.




Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
One thing Earth has is the ability to self-regulate it's atmosphere. While CO2 is naturally pumped into the air, nature has it's "carbon sinks", vast tracts of forests and oceans that absorb CO2, and release oxygen.


Could you tell us why Earth has been getting GREENER?....


PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, June 5, 2003
Source: Goddard Space Flight Center

A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.

The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.

"Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...

www.spaceref.com...


Could you tell us why people who own greenhouses increase the atmospheric CO2 content to nominal levels in between 1,200 ppm to 1,500 ppm, meanwhile Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration is 380 ppm....



Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

and the link above is from an environmental website....



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
There's more to be concerned about than just how much CO2 we pump out, there's also the massive deforestation going on. It's a one-two punch, we pump out excessive amounts of pollution, while removing the natural mechanisms that "scrub" it from out atmosphere. I mean, let's call it what it is - pollution. When you call it "CO2" it just sounds so plant-friendly. Mixed in with all that CO2 is even less earth-friendly junk.


Well, you did mention something about trusting science and not "rheotoric"? obviously you don't have enough of one, and too much of the other.

CO2 is not "less friendly junk".... Atmospheric CO2 is PLANT FOOD...and it is a gas which ALL life on the planet needs to survive.

CO2 is also certainly NOT a pollutant, that is unless you work for the EPA, or other nonsense organization whom have also TRIED to label WATER VAPOR as a pollutant...

It is also a FACT that the Earth is DEPRIVED of atmospheric CO2, because the levels of atmospheric CO2 that Earth currently has is still some of the lowest that has EVER existed on Earth. There was only one other time when atmospheric levels of CO2 were similar to today's, and that was the late carboniferous period.


Earths atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

www.geocraft.com...



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
You still have to rely on the science, not the rhetoric.


Oh wow.... well I guess that is the proof you need right there heh?....

Let's see which of the two subjects you mentioned you actually rely on...



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Everything these global-warming scientists did should be put under a microscope and reviewed. I think a lot of people see the researchers fudging their data as a ploy to foist "cap and trade" on businesses. "Cap and trade" is nothing more than a scam to allow heavy polluters to keep polluting while buying carbon credits off other companies, an invention by the government to white-wash the problem while profiting at the same time.


Except that first of all, the entire environmentalist movement has been backing the "cap and trade" and similar laws, and treaties because they are too naive to know otherwise.

Second of all, Michael Mann, along some others who are the researchers which the IPCC relied on for their conclusions have been deceiving the world for a long time.

Michael Mann is the same person that came up with the rigged data for his "Hockey Stick Graph" which didn't show the Medieval Warm period, and his later works even tried to bury the end of the Roman Warm Period... Then scientists like Jones saw this as the perfect time to join in with Mann, and some others, to rig their data together, and extrapolate their data trying to vilify all the research done by thousands of scientists from around the world which showed that both the Medieval Warm, and the Roman Warm periods were global in nature, and were WARMER than it has been in the 20th, and the beginning of the 21st century.



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
You can summarize the "greenhouse gas" problem succinctly:


Really? let's see what you have to say....


Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
The Earth is an enclosed eco-system.


...Wrong, if it was an enclosed eco-system then nothing from outside would influence it, and we know for a fact that there are dozens of factors outside of Earth which define it's climate, and it's environment...



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
CO2 released naturally is absorbed by "carbon sinks", the ocean and forests.


... the manmade CO2 is also absorbed by "the oceans, and forests"... Not all of it has been absorbed and in fact this is a GOOD thing, since we don't really want a atmospheric CO2 deprived, or impoverished atmosphere...

What type of CO2 do you think people use in their greenhouses btw?....and plants and trees produce up to 60% more with atmospheric levels of CO2 from 1,200

Will continue below...

[edit on 9-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Our sun also has it's cool periods and warm periods which affects us. We're currently at a low ebb in the suns output.


Yes, and recent research has found that because the interplanetary magnetic field is fluctuating wildly, because of the Sun's own activities have been at an all time low since 2006, and it is very weak, more cosmic rays, among other things, are entering the Solar System.


Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High
09.29.2009


September 29, 2009: Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything weve seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."


science.nasa.gov...


Scientists also found that because of the weakening of the interplanetary field some other cosmic source is heating the Earth's atmosphere.


Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere
By Stuart Wolpert September 09, 2009

UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.

"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun's magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.

Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere. This region is where communications spacecraft operate and where the energy releases in space known as substorms wreak havoc on satellites, power grids and communications systems.
....

newsroom.ucla.edu...




Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
When the balance does tip, naturally or not, you'll see disrupted weather patterns and rising ocean levels. What are the extremes? Ice age? Waterworld? Can't say either appeals to me.


Balance?... what balance? i am sure you are not talking about any "planetary balance" right?.....



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Now apply Man's contribution: we release CO2 among other pollutants.
We remove vast tracts of forests (carbon sinks).


CO2 is not a pollutant, and the real pollutants are not part of the "kyoto protocol" or the "Copenhagen Hoax, I mean meeting"....


Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Even if we're not the cause of "global warming", or "climate change", we're still having an effect. The question is and always has been, how much of an effect, and where is the tipping point - where our contribution causes a rapid climate change?


Oh so we might not be the cause but we are contributing to "Global Warming"?.... This is the same type of excuse the AGWers use, "whether it gets warmer or colder humans are at fault and it's because of CO2".....


You people have been misusing your flip flops too much lately.. "CO2 causes warming, and causes cooling, which then causes more WARMING and then causes more COOLING..." Obviously you can't even get your stories straight....



Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
One other point, volcanism does release CO2, which I've seen some people here using as an argument that volcanoes contribute to global warming - but consider, volcanoes also release a lot of sun-blocking ash when they erupt, in fact major eruptions in the past have led to severe winters or even mini ice ages. If the sunlight can't reach the earth, then it doesn't matter how much CO2 was released in the eruption, and by the time the soot and ash has settled, our carbon sinks have done their job, and absorbed the CO2. Of course I'm not saying this goes on with all volcanoes, but certainly for the major eruptions.


PLants, trees, and EVERYTHING that is alive, and even everything that is dying, releases CO2 and the total amount of natural CO2 released is much greater than the amounts released by mankind.

BTW, if you want to concentrate on environmentalism, then be a real environmentalist... CO2 IS GOOD FOR PLANTS AND TREES.......

Perhaps if instead you were demanding for the plastic islan in the Pacific island to be slowly removed, instead of demanding for a PERFECTLY GOOD GAS to be removed, your case might not fall in deaf ears.....



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
Historical records show that CO2 levels of preindustrial times show that the levels were same as today. But manipulation by the scientists to prove their theories, so they can receive money from TPTB to institute another Tax and Control frame work, is fraud of the highest nature.


Incorrect.

CO2 levels have not been this high for a million years.

That is not a typo: a Million Years.

Any assertion that CO2 is the same now as in "preindustrial times" is so wrong as to be laughable.

Most recent readings from Mona Loa: 385ppm

Historical CO2 Records from the Antarctica Law Dome Ice Cores

The atmospheric CO2 reconstructions presented here offer records of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from 1006 A.D. to 1978 A.D. The air enclosed in the three ice cores from Law Dome, Antarctica has unparalled age resolution and extends into recent decades, because of the high rate of snow accumulation at the Law Dome drill sites (Etheridge et al. 1996). Etheridge et al. (1996) reported the uncertainty of the ice core CO2 mixing ratios is 1.2 ppm. Preindustrial CO2 mixing ratios were in the range 275-284 ppm, with the lower levels during 1550-1800 A.D., probably as a result of colder global climate (Etheridge et al. 1996). The Law Dome ice core CO2 records show major growth in atmospheric CO2 levels over the industrial period, except during 1935-1945 A.D. when levels stabilized or decreased slightly.


Here is a graph of CO2 versus temperature for the last 800,000 years, notice the indicator of current levels:



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer


Tell that to the planet Venus, it's atmosphere is mostly CO2 and it's experiencing what planetary science calls a "runaway greenhouse" effect.



has it ever occurred to you that the AGW plan might just include such misleading and invalid comparisons as the Venus / Earth analogy? wind speeds on Venus are low, while days are long, iow, there should be a huge heat imbalance, resulting in particularly strong winds. try


www.bearfabrique.org...

if you want to, i'm not suggesting that's all there i to know, but there are several indications that Venus' thermal balance is way off the charts, ie. emitting a lot of heat, which results in a large a high temperature because of the clouded and isolating nature of its atmosphere. naturally, they won't mention that in any shape or form at a time when the wealth transfer mechanism of another generation hinges on the greenhouse effect, which can in reality be observed only in situations of inhibited convection.




top topics



 
2

log in

join