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.

 

Russians confirm that UK scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   


This is turning out to be worse than the 9/11 commission. The 'illuminati' can't be very smart. Very greedy I'll give them that. There's no way they can contain this global warming fib. It's totally ridiculous. And even if the implement this global carbon tax, and tax credits, It's a lie people are going to have to believe generation after generation for it to work! It's not like an assassination that can be swept under the carpet and brushed off with time.

Maurice Strong. You are an idiot.




posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by IrnBruFiend
 


I agree with you. I keep going on about sea levels. I've already mentioned in some other threads that back in the 70's we were told that sea levels would rise and cities would disappear beneath the waves.

40 years on and nothing has happened, the sea has not risen at all. No cities have succumbed to the sea. It was all BS.

So now they tell us the same BS and the sheeple are just soaking it up and believing it.

So when do we find out which set of scientists are correct.

How many years do we pay into the carbon tax system before somebody says "is it fixed yet"

Or do you think the NWO scientists will start altering the data again to show slight reductions in GW to trick sheeple into thinking all the pain was worth it.

For me its all nonsence, a total scam.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


They know they can't control the climate. But what they can do is increase taxes more and more as all efforts to control it prove fruitless.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Interesting point about the sea levels from 40 years ago.

I think that's the fundamental flaw with this whole conspiracy. They have to maintain the public's belief in global warming and that is impossible. If anything it'll just exacerbate over time and get worse. How are they going to retreat from anthropogenic global warmining? They'll need some sort of clever transition I think and this will have to be another lie to get out of a lie. And when I say clever it'll be stupid and people will believe it.

There was a swine flu threat back in the 70's. I Think that's similar to the sea levels rising.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
Russians confirm that UK scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.


Really?... This is where I act suprised...since Russia has a profound interest in seeing any efforts to regulate fossil fuels fail given their profits from oil and associated pipelines...

and coincidentally enough...LOL...

Climategate: was Russian secret service behind email hacking plot?


Thousands of emails, from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were first published on a small server in the city of Tomsk in Siberia.

So-called ‘patriot hackers’ from Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service, the FSB, to attack websites disliked by the Kremlin, such as the “denial of service” campaign launched against the Kavkaz-Tsentr website, over its reports about the war in Chechnya, in 2002.


Yah...the Russians are suddenly a beacon of truth...



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


How unexpected, a practitioner of the AGW religion who thinks that any debate on the subject can be cast aside via adhominem attacks.
How delightfully predictable.
Can not the same argument be made for any believer in your congregation who agrees with it? Spreading the AGW gospel has brought your church many benefits. So by the same logic all who've recieved climate funding should also be ignored.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I have stated on other threads concerning this issue and been 'jumped on' for my belief ! And that is that global warming is a scam by the gov'ts to tax the people plain and simple ! They need one thing or another to 'scare' the population and to subdue them and this is it ! In my view global warming is a natural cycle of the earth it has happened before and in time will happen again ! The earth is an organism that adapts and self heals ! It will adapt itself to accomodate the rise and fall in populations ! In the 1600's sailors in their ships logs wrote of similar changes that we are experiencing now ! It's right there written in history ! No doubt some doomsayer will ask me to supply them with said logs as evidence but i'm sure they are intelligent enough to do they're own research !

[edit on 013131p://12America/Chicago18 by ProRipp]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


Not interested in all the "religion" and "follower" baiting. Try it on some else.

Analysis on the emails and their validity or relevance needs to be done by independent QUALIFIED folks.

Considering that it appears that Russian Secret Service was behind the hacked emails and that they depend on oil and oil pipelines to fund their government...and it is in thier strong interest to delay any restriction on fossil fuel usage...yes...I am not going to take Russia's word for it.

You, however, can continue to suddenly declare anyone trustworthy you like irregardless of credibility...as long as it fits your world view...right? I'll continue to vet the science.

The convoluted "culture war" that has infected this scientific debate offers comedy such as this...right leaning americans suddenly espousing how great, honest and trustworthy Russia is...

Sad or Funny? I choose to laugh.

Try the science for a while...you are free to come to any conclusion you like from the numbers...it might be a relief to not find yourself championing the credibility of the Russian governments, etc.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
How many times has Russia been mentioned throughout this Summit and the weeks before it?

Zero.

Who has? Europe, the United States, China and India.

Now, you understand the Russian claims. She is declining country with little influence in the world.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?



Exactly. People still think its the cold war. Russia wants to be friends with europe, and people like this guy will not allow it, lol.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   

The main objectives of IEA are:

• содействие развитию экономических и социальных наук;
• to promote economic and social sciences;

• изучение и обогащение российского и зарубежного опыта разработки и осуществления экономической политики, теории и практики рыночной экономики и экономической реформы;
• study and enrichment of Russia and foreign experience in developing and implementing economic policy, theory and practice of market economy and economic reform;

• оказание содействия российским государственным органам, общественным организациям, а также иным физическим и юридическим лицам при разработке и осуществлении экономической и социальной политики;
• Assisting Russia's state organs, public organizations, as well as other individuals and entities in the development and implementation of economic and social policies;

• расширение внутрироссийского и международного обмена фундаментальными и прикладными знаниями, научными идеями.
• Increased domestic and international exchange of basic and applied knowledge, scientific ideas.

ИЭА поддерживает интенсивный творческий обмен с ведущими российскими и зарубежными научными и образовательными центрами - Российской экономической школой, Высшей школой экономики, Институтом Катона.
IEA maintains intensive creative exchange with leading Russia's and foreign scientific and educational centers - the New Economic School, Higher School of Economics, the Cato Institute.

Материалы ИЭА по проблемам экономического развития и экономической политики регулярно публикуются в средствах массовой информации, журнале "Вопросы экономики", представляются на конференциях и пресс-конференциях.
Materials IEA on economic development and economic policies are regularly published in the media, the journal "Economic Issues", presented at conferences and press conferences.

Основным направлением исследований ИЭА является взаимосвязь экономического роста, экономической свободы и политической свободы.
The main direction of research IEA is the relationship of economic growth, economic freedom and political freedom.


The IEA is essentially a free-market think-tank associated with Cato in the US. Created by Andrei Illarionov in the early 90s. Illarionov was a Putin economic advisor and is a libertarian (surprise, surpise, lol). He's also a senior fellow at the Cato institute - home to many american AGW deniers and funded by industry interests.

And from another thread, not entirely related but hits the spot. The report shows nothing like UK scientists manipulating data at all. This think-tank suggests that other stations should be used in datasets. Cool. As noted, if the data is reliable then we should. Might need to have a few scientists look at the issue rather than a free-market think-tank, though.


Originally posted by melatonin
I'll get in before the potential lock to say that Dellingpole is a serial BSer, for sure.

Has anyone actually bothered to look at the IEA report?

Go have a look-see. All they point out is that there are a large number of stations in Russia that are not included in the CRU dataset. Not surprising since the CRU have been collecting this data for decades and Russia hasn't always been the most open source of information. Anyways, once included in the data, the early period around 1850-1900 was (significantly) not as cold as with the more restricted data. Cool. If the data is fine we should use it.

However, it shows little difference during most the 20th century and into the 21st. Minimal. Nothing of note.

Dellingpole is a BSer.

www.iea.ru...

Page 20 compares the 152 station Russian dataset with the 90 station dataset (which CRU have been using).

One of the long-term criticisms of HADCRUT in general is that it doesn't cover large sections of the earth (the poles), so this is nothing new. GISS does though.


ABE: the report itself is written by a N. A. Pivovarova and revised by Illarionov. Pivovarova is at Astrakhan technical university in Russia, and is an oil/gas scientist.


The research of the Department of «Chemical Technology of Oil and Gas» involve such themes as «Oil and Petroleum Residue Deep Refining» (Prof. A. K. Manovan, Prof.G.V.Tarakanov) and «Exposure of Liquid Systems to Magnetic Field and Increase of Technological Process Efficiency» (Assistant-Professor N. A. Pivovarova)




[edit on 18-12-2009 by melatonin]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?



Again you are confused. I am not declaring Russia's claims valid or invalid...I am saying they have a history of propigating falsehoods to further their own interests and that means ....I don't take their word for it.

I want to hear what the IPCC says about Russia's claims...I also want someone other than the IPCC to examine the evidence...but just because Russia says something you WANT to hear...does not make it true or false.

Given that they were behind the hacking of the emails...and thier dependance on oil for money...and vested interest in delaying any global actions that would curtail their oil profits...and their established history of propaganda ...

this latest bit speaks loudly of agenda and warrants viewing thier claims skeptically...whether they are being accurate in the claim is another matter...get it?

Is independant thinking that hard to do?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 





This calls into question the integrity of data collected, at the very least. One could also ask, "who is reporting the warming?", oh wait the guys whose livelihoods depend on it.


Of all the objections to the idea of human caused climate change, this is the most bizarrely twisted.

Scientists livelihoods depend on doing GOOD SCIENCE. Period.

If it happened that GOOD SCIENCE were saying that the earth is cooling then any scientist who falsified science and said it was warming would quite rightly take damage to their livelihood.

But the reverse is happening: GOOD SCIENCE is saying the earth is warming and those scientists who are falsifying science and saying it is cooling are prospering under the wing of vested interests.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


You basically said I could stick with whatever opinion fits my world view. You then said you, on the other hand would, would vet the science. I'd be interested to see the science that shows CO2 is the cause of temperature rise. Honestly.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Agree to disagree, I suppose. Declaring Russia's claims invalid because they're Russian isn't science, it's an opinion.
Isn't it nice to believe whatever we choose?



Again you are confused. I am not declaring Russia's claims valid or invalid...I am saying they have a history of propigating falsehoods to further their own interests and that means ....I don't take their word for it.

This is ridiculous. What planet are you on? WHO DOESN'T have a history of perpetuating falsehoods? The whole idea of this thread is "not taking their word for it". I am confused, at how you can imply that I'm all about taking people's word for it in the face of the pro-AGW media frenzy.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I want to hear what the IPCC says about Russia's claims...I also want someone other than the IPCC to examine the evidence...but just because Russia says something you WANT to hear...does not make it true or false.

You want to hear what the russians have to say? You came right off the bat questioning their credibility, because they're Russian. Your initial post was laced with sarcasm, and when my response also was, purposefully you act all high and mighty as if you're on some higher ground. The university has attested that the emails are indeed real. You want to see what the IPCC thinks? Check out the thread where the man is kicked out of the place for asking a question about it. Indeed, how credible it makes them seem!!

Originally posted by maybereal11
Given that they were behind the hacking of the emails...and thier dependance on oil for money...and vested interest in delaying any global actions that would curtail their oil profits...and their established history of propaganda ...

Sure indeed it's enough to not blindly follow it, if it's only these people talking about it. However it is not, and many others are saying the same things these Russians are.
Every country employs propaganda, indeed, after hearing this climate summit, the whole thing sounds like an attempt at a socialist takeover. In the face of something that threatens the GDP of your economy, it is not unethical to double check the facts before making a decision. Some would even call it, ya know, the prudent thing to do.


Originally posted by maybereal11
this latest bit speaks loudly of agenda and warrants viewing thier claims skeptically...whether they are being accurate in the claim is another matter...get it?

Is independant thinking that hard to do?


Let's keep a close eye on the environment, and find out for sure that we're causing climate change before we give in to taxation without representation.

You see that there? that is the reason I made this thread. It is in the OP ffs. I chose to bring an opposing viewpoint from the norm, because I feel that taking action in such ways that they are proposing will do no good for the environment. I'm definately not convinced co2 will be a problem for a very, very long time. That, my friend, is the definition of independant thinking.
What you're doing is assuming I believe 100 percent of everything that fits my worldview. If it were so, I'd be on the AGW bandwagon just like I used to be.
So you can take your little sarcastic remarks that are so obviously self-gratifying, so much that it actually makes me feel slightly uncomfortable, and push them on the next guy.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by heyo
 





This calls into question the integrity of data collected, at the very least. One could also ask, "who is reporting the warming?", oh wait the guys whose livelihoods depend on it.


Of all the objections to the idea of human caused climate change, this is the most bizarrely twisted.

Scientists livelihoods depend on doing GOOD SCIENCE. Period.

If it happened that GOOD SCIENCE were saying that the earth is cooling then any scientist who falsified science and said it was warming would quite rightly take damage to their livelihood.

But the reverse is happening: GOOD SCIENCE is saying the earth is warming and those scientists who are falsifying science and saying it is cooling are prospering under the wing of vested interests.


I don't, nor have I disputed this. Come on people, this is about using the CO2 scare to usher every western taxpaying citizen into a state of perpetual taxation to unelected representatives.
the science doesn't show co2 is causing global warming. Climate change will occur till sol goes nova. Or mininova. or whatever.
I can't for the life of me figure out how we're going to sto p the earth's natural temperature fluctuations. How long till Mr. Burns is hired to block out the sun????
It makes about as much sense!!!



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Russian Secret services behind the climate gate hack and leak
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyone listening to them is just their pawn.....
And Why?



"Russia believes current rules are stacked against it, and has threatened to pull the plug on Copenhagen without concessions to Kremlin concerns.

Computer hackers in Tomsk have been used in the past by the Russian secret service (FSB) to shut websites which promote views disliked by Moscow. Such arrangements provide the Russian government with plausible deniability while using so-called ‘hacker patriots’ to shut down websites Russia is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and lags behind many Western countries in greening its industry.

However, its emissions plunged in the Nineties as its economy collapsed and it now sits on a treasure trove of unused carbon emission permits that could be sold to other countries. These are due to expire in 2012 with the Kyoto Treaty. The Kremlin wants these to be rolled forward and last week signalled they would not sign a new deal without this, threatening the whole Copenhagen summit."


Russia cannot comply with any of it, do you have any idea how much money is at stake for them it will practially bankrupt them...and you want to believe the Russians? All be cause they support ones stance on GW. Think first why they are like that.

Its all economincs and politiking, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.....Don't be made anyones b*tch and do their arguing for them....lol


[edit on 18-12-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Reply to post by maybereal11
 


Welcome to a grey world....


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zazzafrazz
 


Ok.
Climate funding over the years.
What we have here is two sides with equally questionable motives, to sum it up.
Only one side of the coin is being flashed it concerns all of us.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join