"Climategate" question earns an iron-fisted response in Copenhagen

reply to post by Seiko

It is the duty of all free to people to question their governments. I don't think their theories would last a day on this site because they can't even defend their positions. The inability to answer even the simplest questions is a sign of an unstable or deceiving mind. People need to see this video.

That may be true, but everything is about public opinion. You can't simply explain yourself. For example: a phenomenon exists in this country related to taxes. Most people want good programs and low taxes. See the issue there? Politicians know this but would never call out the public on this kind of delusional thinking. Therefore, you wont get a straight answer because they don't want to let the cat out of the bag and be the one to deliver the hard truth to Americans......."Government programs and services cost money."

This is just one example. Its not necessarily that their ideas fail and can't be defended. Most of the time their shyness in answering questions is related to public opinion. One more example.

I can't remember who but a member of the Obama administration was asked by fox news (atleast I think it was fox), if they were keeping the email addresses on file of those people who email them sites making false statements. The representative had a hard time admitting that yes they keep them. The administration may simply be logging email addresses like anyone in business or personal life would, but if they openly admit to it, it could be spun by politically driven opponents. They could say that the administration is building a "hit list" or something like that. (who knows what the truth is, it's just an example)

I see many people assuming on this site instead of considering all the facts on both sides of the argument. Its always the worse outcome which is assumed and it's almost always totalitarian. The bottom line is, we don't know the truth. Any good scientist wouldn't rush to assumptions not knowing the truth. What if a group of people HAVE infiltrated the NWO and are now working to end it. Any move they make to end the NWO would be viewed as totalitarian by this site and many others. Maybe a civil war will break out and stop them. Then the NWO wins.

Speaking of the NWO, have any of you ever considered that it would be a good thing? I believe John Lennon was an advocate of this.

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."

[edit on 17-12-2009 by brianmg5]

s+f for it need attention . these people are brainwashed comunist

look up a group called common purpose they have infiltrated all sectors of society .i have met a few they just laugh and smile and totally think they are doin a great work.they are like a cross from a jehovah+commie+scietologist+retard+well dressed and looks the part they remind me of them .

This makes me mad .
That guy is askin a question which i for one think should be answered were is this phil proffesor guy..
HOW CAN HE BE ALLOWED TO VANISH IN THIN AIR CONVENIENT OR WHAT.Especially after what he did allowin data destroyed and altered. it stinks


S+F for attention

[edit on 12/17/2009 by dashar]

fascism at its best

nothing more to say

Originally posted by Dr Love

This journalist, Phelim McAleer, asks a question in a completely professional manner

I'll interject just a little objectivity and scram before the extemists pounce on me.

Phelim McAleer is a journalist the way Michael Moore is a journalist.
Phelim is fierce anti-envirornmentalist and releases documentaries toward this agenda with the same kind of bias Michael Moore is often accused of.
Here is his last project...
en.wikipedia.org...

His question was loaded with assumption and bias...similiar to "how do you feel about never being caught beating your wife"

That said...he had the right to ask it and the panel member did a piss-poor job at responding.

It also looked liked they clipped the panel members response...i'd be interested in the full unedited video...looking for it now.

The security guard was a moron. Public event, public interest...any question is OK to ask and cameras are good to have around. It is this kind of lack of transparency that adds to the controversy.

Just my 2 cents.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by maybereal11]

reply to post by loam

As I see it, the whole climate debate now has two separate yet inextricably intertwined facets. On the one hand there have been some observed phenomena that the scientific portion of the debate purports to address. On the other side, there is definite political maneuvering and skulduggery happening that, at least on the surface, appears to be responsible for at least some of the observations.

Thus it becomes difficult to even argue against what is happening. If one attempts to debate the science, one begins to come across indications that political pressure has been used to influence scientific observation. But if one attempts to address that issue in a political sense, they are quickly pointed to the few easily verified phenomena and accused of being 'unscientific'. Should one attempt to debate the science behind the political agenda, one is quickly directed to politically-biased sources (Al Gore? Jim Hansen?).

I have no real issue with the science, only a disagreement over a conclusion that could easily be proven to me should it be provable. My major disagreement is more in the political realm, where it is readily apparent to me that certain powers are using the science to advance political goals. That calls the scientific evidence into question. Instead of each side of the argument reinforcing the other, the very fact that they attempt to do so with such fervor causes me to discount both.

Then I see things like this video, and I realize just how deep this rabbit hole called AGW really goes...

Yes, my friend, the world has gone mad.

Should the world stand, I honestly believe we are entering into a new Dark Ages, where scientific reasoning and thought will be controlled and manipulated by leaders while the people are reduced to little more than cattle by the very science that could liberate them beyond imagination. More and more, I find myself wondering how it could possibly be that a species so self-destructive as ours could have advanced technologically to the point we have.

That is, in the end, my final reason for disbelieving Evolutionary Theory. I look around at society, then realize "but we're here"... so much for survival of the fittest...

[/rant]

TheRedneck

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Well, his question was up, it was time to share the microphone with other press members and such. And the cameraman was asked to turn off his camera by security in a respectful manner.

Maybe it's because I JUST woke up from a nap but what's new or alerting here?

It is the fact that you just proved to me that you are actively contributing to the disinformation abundant within ATS and society in general.

I know what you are doing... What's the problem? You are. Either you directly answer to someone in a position to do something, or you are completely enslaved by those who control.

You are asleep! You will be the first person they throw into the meat grinder, and you already let them. Your statement has the spiritual content of a Big Mac or a microwave, and you are purposefully attempting to derail honest, intelligent discussions when you can't even bother to care.

Now go talk to your friends and they will tell you to ignore me because I am stupid and have no idea. It will make you feel better as they are most likely as closed minded as you are.

This whole video was a set up affair to guide public opinion, and even a rational intelligent person asking an innocent question will receive hell, because the people who need to be intelligent to get away with this are not intelligent and don't understand that if you receive a question that compromises your positions and desires, just smile and lie. The Prince comes to mind.

Tell the others, you are but a puppet in a vast game that is about to cut your strings. DANCE, DANCE! Your masters are pleased. Really. Maybe when they attempt to flee the sinking ship, you can get a job digging their graves for them.

Seems like a decent guy looking for the truth. Keep going man don't let these global warming fanatics get to ya. Saw his interview yesterday in the polar bear suit. Someone hit him in the face with something while he was talking to a popular newscaster. Also a moron had an I'm with stupid sign and a bunch of thugs booing at him in the background. Yeah these global warming fanatics are real professional aren't they.

This is just a crazy theory, what if climate push is all a big scam to try and prepare for a more expiedient threat aside from Co2? Planet X, a brown dwarf, Solar storms?

The best way to hide something is in plain view.....dont you think its a little suspicious that we never get a straight or scientific answer with data to prove academically sound?

What about War on Terror and WMD's? I think there is another reason we are in the middle east aside from oil and terror, more sinister in nature.

-Just a thought.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Well, let's see... there is no violation of freedom of speech or freedom of the press as we in America see these things, because The US Constitution does not apply in Denmark. They have their own laws and rules of conduct, which apparently do not include the above rights we in the USA take for granted.

America is not unique in regards to freedom of speech . And I have seen many instances where the press is seriously restricted, especially during the bush era.

In Denmark the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are ensured by § 77 of the constitution[1]:

"Anyone is entitled to in print, writing and speech to publish his or hers thoughts, yet under responsibility to the courts. Censorship and other preventive measures can never again be introduced."

reply to post by Deny Arrogance

Thank you for that information. I was hesitant to speak to Denmark's Constitution, as I obviously am unfamiliar with it. I know the USA is not alone in having freedoms, but I also know that those freedoms vary from country to country.

However, this brings up a troubling issue in itself. Did the security guard not censor the reporter? Is that not itself a violation of Denmark's Constitution?

TheRedneck

After you watch the video and get good and mad, calm down and watch it again.

It is a REDICULOUSLY edited bit of footage.

This debacle is due to two basic concepts.

1)credulity

2)Albert Bandura's concept of modeling, which is the foundation of cognitive-behavioral psychology.

We are the products of the new high priests of Hollywood.

Either bow down to the new God or turn the television off.

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
After you watch the video and get good and mad, calm down and watch it again.

It is a REDICULOUSLY edited bit of footage.

It is a an excerpt from a trailer for Phelim McAleer's (the "Journalist") anti-AGW documentary/movie...so I expect it to be a contrived bit of marketing.

Phelim McAleer strikes me as the Michael Moore of the anti-man made GW debate. Otherwise he is comfortable cherry picking information, ignoring contradictory information etc. to play to peoples "outrage" buttons and sell his films.

Of course the footage was heavily edited...he is "selling".

All of that said...Marketeer, nut-job,...whatever, he had the right to ask the question...even if it was a loaded question. The scientist handled the response poorly.

FYI - The scientist and the "journalist" know eachother. Philim McAleer had recently interviewed him for his movie and when the scientist realized the nature of the film and expected Philem to take his words out of context...he had an attorney send a letter telling Philem he could not use the interview in his movie.

So otherwise the scientist knew it was going to be an attack question and that might explain his flustered response...although not excuse it.

I don't like any security guard/cop etc. telling anyone to "turn off" camera's at a public conference...and his question was not well answered.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by maybereal11]

Wow, I can't believe what I just saw! It is one thing to suspect foul play but its much more *in your face* when you actually see something like this with your own two eyes.

The lady dressed in blue seems to have "eyed" the reporter a long time ago and as soon as the reporter stood up to ask his "controversial questions" she hounded him immediately...even trying to take away his microphone. Then she talks to the security guard, who then starts harrassing the reporter and the camera crew.

If you noticed the reporter was very nervous himself, stumbling and what-not. He knew they had consquences but asked anyway. The professor from stanford had all the answers ready and seemed more confident than the reporter.

I hate global warming, it's so hot.

Now please global warming means it's warming up, so why is it snowing and it has been every year for the last three. so why the f**k is it like the north pole and the summers are so lame that it is hot for 6 weeks.

i Would have bought it if they said it was global chilling. Well that's my two pence on this bull s**t.

Heavy snow forecast for many parts of UK

Heavy snowfall is expected in parts of the UK, with south-east England expected to be worst affected.


news.bbc.co.uk...

This kind of behavior makes me wonder about the content and how UN meetings take place. Do they rehearse everything the night before, like who will ask what and how the questions will be answered?

Is it really a broadway gig?

reply to post by sowerby


If it's on UN territory it's governed by UN rules... and you'd have to check the charter... however, I believe freedom of press is in the UN charter. If it's in Copenhagen, it's under Danish law, and again, Denmark should have freedom of the press.

The idiots are running the asylum.

For a long time I was hopeful that we could combat these villians via peacful means. However, if thuggery is now going to be commonplace, then I say the gloves must come off.

It is time to start pushing back.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Freenrgy2]

I read a news item years ago -- and I apologize for not having the source any more, it was a while back -- where it was announced that evidence of "global warming" had been found. So I read this thing and I find that most of the warming found was in the Southern Hemisphere and I go "Hmm." Then I read a little bit further and find that most of the warming in the Southern Hemisphere was in the low temperature readings, or at night. I go "Hmm" again.

I studied weather and climate in college, you see -- didn't complete a degree but was well on my way through the core courses, had done experiments in the lab, and so on. I had experimentally verified, in my lab requirement, that land heats faster than water. Much faster, in fact, given the same amount of heat added to the system. I had also learned some things about microclimatology, which is climate on the small scale. I was especially fascinated by urban heat islands.

What makes all this relevant? Well... turns out that the type of heating described by the study I read about went counter to the lab experimentation and the common weather knowledge that I learned in my college courses. Instead of the Northern Hemisphere warming faster, because it has much more land than the Southern Hemisphere, it was the Southern Hemisphere warming faster. And, instead of the warming being spread out over the entire 24 hour cycle as I would expect in a generalized warming event, only the nights were getting warmer.

I had seen that sort of pattern before. It happens when rapidly expanding cities grow past thermometer sites. Phoenix, Arizona is an infamous example of this. Since the 1950s, when Phoenix was only a small city, it had generally more than 30 degree ranges between day and night and it averaged about 88 to 90 degrees in July, and around 50 degrees in January. The latest averages I saw were about 94 degrees in July and 54 degrees in January. In the same five decades, Phoenix's population exploded 1000 percent, from about 100,000 in 1950 to over 1 million in 2000. The main airport, I believe it's called Sky Harbor, used to be on the outskirts but is now well within the urban sprawl. And here's the kicker: In the averages, the nights warmed much faster than the days, from about 35 deg in January to 42 degrees in January, highs 65 to 66; and from about 75 deg in July to 81 deg in July, highs, 105 to 106.

That's not a large scale caused warming event, that's LOCAL. The urban heat island simply expanded over the measuring site used to record the data for the climate.

So... guess where cities have expanded far faster? The Northern Hemisphere? North America, Europe, Asia? No. The Southern Hemisphere. South America, Southern Africa, and Australia; in South America particularly, urban growth has been nothing short of phenomenal overall. It's not hard to figure out how that study I read about that trumpeted "man induced global warming" and cited the Southern Hemisphere warming as evidence -- how that evidence came to be. The Southern Hemisphere cities simply did as Phoenix did -- they expanded over their measuring sites and presto! warming. Only problem is, it was warming due to contamination by human activity -- replacing grass and trees with concrete and buildings -- not due to macroclimatic change. The laws of physics don't change -- water still warms slower than land, so if you have faster warming in a regional zone that has more oceans, look for another cause. Either the warming is coming from the seafloor's tectonic activity -- which is in fact true in the Arctic Ocean, or it's coming from nearby urbanization at the thermometer sites.

I think it would be a good idea to hold way off on drastic carbon-cutting measures -- and by the way, we're made of carbon, it comes from our food, and guess where plants get it from? -- hold off on CO2 emissions nonsense and do more research first.

Freedom of speech/press is a huge priority for the UN...supposedly

"During the 1970s and 1980s, UNESCO's support for a "New World Information and Communication Order" and its MacBride report calling for democratization of the media and more egalitarian access to information was condemned in these countries as attempts to curb freedom of the press."

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations established on 16 November 1945. Its stated purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the UN Charter.