Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here

Amazing article that I thought it was already posted here, but I dont think it was since Google didnt match.

pajamasmedia.com...

Its a great article that I recommend to everyone

This article talks about how the US media is trying to make us forget about the Climategate escandal and how they are trying to manipulate information ...

It’s been called the “biggest scientific scandal in history.” It has everything to earn Pulitzer consideration: lies and misconduct in high places, political implications, even massive financial transactions that may or may not be legitimate or even legal. It’s big news … as long as you read the Telegraph, the Guardian, the London Times, or even major Indian papers. It’s no news at all if you read the U.S. mainstream media. ... [follow at the link]

I dont have a lot to say, this article just tries to show the climategate game that is happening around the world, a lot of people are trying to make us look like fools, they are trying to make us forget, but, its hard ... a lot of excuses and very few debates about the subject

I dont believe that there is proof to either side of the discussion about GW, but we need more debates, more scientific studies, more everything ... since, well, this is the future of everything and a lot of money is involved.

Okay, I will bump!

Yes, it is bullcrap and will be soon to be known as the greatest hoax EVER tried on the WORLD!

S&F

Agreed AGW is BS and the biggest hoax ever! And it is shameful how the U.S. MSM is completely ignoring it. Thankfully we still have the internet (for now)

ETA: Why is the US MSM so quiet about the AGW hoax? They cover all kinds of stupid crap but not this? Are they going to try to pull off more crap and trade junk legislation in the US congress? They'll hear from me if they do.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by FunSized]

I'm in the HVAC industry and used to argue with these nimrod engineers, instuctors and the dope smoking tree huggers teaching our Hvac calsses that the whole premise of "Human Caused" global warming was total BS and was a front for promoting an Anti-US, Anti-Free market philosophy that was geared toward a more Marxist Anti-American philosophy and a giant redistrabution of wealth and resources. I caught nothing but grief for my stances and I had full blown arguements with these clowns in a local college classrooms here in San Diego.

The state of Kalifornia is now in the throes of destroying this industry because the politicos and the supposed industry gurus have fallen for this garbage and their cohorts and minions now fill a lot of regulatory positions throughout the state and they weild a ton of influence legally and financially.

Take R-410A refrigerant for instance. Several jokers in regulatory capacity have decided that chloro-florocarbons are dangerous to the atmosphere and so they regulated away some very safe, stable and efficient gases under the guise of "Saving the Planet". This new gas, R-410a, is an Azeotrope, a 50-50 blend with different glide ratios and operates at double the pressurres of R-22 and is less efficient and requires more materials to make an efficient coil to dissapate heat, but the geniuses insist that this an environmentally safe gas and good for the environment. I don't buy and in a short time this equipment and this gas will be shown to be junk just like their science. The pressures it operates at are dangerous as hell, and it's only a matter of time before catstrophic failures starting hurting people.



[edit on 26-2-2010 by sharkman]

Sorry if this does not work for the links. This document is difficult to find, but it is one of the BEST explanations of the global warming scam that I have found. It is called CO2 The debate is not over by W.R.Pratt. It is long - 49 pages - but is a MUST read for everyone.

The links/text below are from a Dutch web site.

The CO2 Debate Is Not Over…W.R. Pratt..(pdf 49 pg).. Humans emit approximately 8 billion tons of CO2 per year. It sounds like a lot doesn't it?.. It is said that the atmosphere contains an average of about 750 gigatons of CO2 which is roughly 385 ppm. (parts per million).. 8 gigatons into 750 gigatons = 93.75 --385 ppm ÷ 93.75 = 4.1066666666666665 ppm. That means that if all 6.8 billion of us reverted to a state before the discovery of fire we could reduce atmospheric CO2 by a staggering 4.1 ppm per year, out of a claimed total average of 385 ppm. SPPI Monthly CO2 Report.aug.2009, vol1 issue 8 (pdf 35 pg).. No heat buildup in the oceans = no global warming.. Where Have All the Sunspots Gone?.. The Middle Ages were warmer than today

Emphasis above by me.

Source

There is a link to a document produced for the EPA in the article above. A document they chose wilfully to ignore.


[edit on 26/2/2010 by PuterMan]

[edit on 26/2/2010 by PuterMan]

AND AGAIN.......



And now please bash me - AGAIN and.....

reply to post by cushycrux


A disbelief in AGW and a desire to create a better environment are NOT mutually exclusive despite what the warmists would have you believe.

If you read the article I posted this shows that at best 4+ ppm of CO2 is attributable to humans, and the other 96%- is natural. THAT is the argument, NOT whether we should carry on polluting. Of course we should not. A cleaner environment is better for everyone, but it will never happen while oil companies buy up every patent for greener technology, and then suppress them. Don't be fooled. Big Oil is just as keen to have global warming proved as it increases their profits dramatically.

So cushycrux, your cartoon is relevant, but not in the way you think apparently.


[edit on 26/2/2010 by PuterMan]

Originally posted by sharkman
Take R-410A refrigerant for instance. Several jokers in regulatory capacity have decided that chloro-florocarbons are dangerous to the atmosphere and so they regulated away some very safe, stable and efficient gases under the guise of "Saving the Planet". This new gas, R-410a, is an Azeotrope, a 50-50 blend with different glide ratios and operates at double the pressurres of R-22 and is less efficient and requires more materials to make an efficient coil to dissapate heat, but the geniuses insist that this an environmentally safe gas and good for the environment. I don't buy and in a short time this equipment and this gas will be shown to be junk just like their science. The pressures it operates at are dangerous as hell, and it's only a matter of time before catstrophic failures starting hurting people.



[edit on 26-2-2010 by sharkman]

What my organic chem professor said about the cfc problem and origianlly Freon was that Dupont held the patent on Freon and when their patent was about to run out they created the cfc threat and lobbied to have Freon banned in the US and wherever else they control(India for example still uses Freon). Of course Dupont had an alternative coolant in R-134a and I believe their patent again ran out so R-134a has been labeled bad and now they are pushing it is replacment.

I do believe Dupont has conspired with whomever they needed to buy off to control the regulations in order to protect their bottom line.

reply to post by cushycrux


well

you need to understand that we wont improve our water, we will take down the CO2 emission, thats it, it doesnt mean we will use only clean energy, it means we wont use CO2 as much, that would be the idea

the problem is that, as u know, the al gore politics say that a country could sell the rights to pollute the nature, so, countries that are not that developed would sell CO2 rights to 1st world countries, and nothing would change

so, be careful and try to understand the problems

if we really would want to change the world, they would use all the money they have to develop another clean energy techniques instead of these TRADING CARBON politics, that are pretty STUPID

a country will just buy the rights to emit CO2 ... I mean, just use your brain, thats not RIGHT

www.thenewamerican.com...

everything that involves $$ needs to be investigated ...

read this, it explains the AL GORE system

www.humanevents.com...




[edit on 26-2-2010 by Faiol]

Originally posted by jrod
What my organic chem professor said about the cfc problem and origianlly Freon was that Dupont held the patent on Freon and when their patent was about to run out they created the cfc threat and lobbied to have Freon banned in the US and wherever else they control(India for example still uses Freon).

Dupont were the Exxon of the CFC issue. They funded astroturf organisations (e.g., Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy) much like the likes of Exxon have done for AGW to fight against regulation.

When they eventually saw the opportunity and produced new compounds, then they relented and openly accepted the problem.

Du Pont also highlighted its phase-out of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production. A Du Pont spokesman at Earth Tech acknowledged that Du Pont had been slow to explore alternatives to CFCs, but claimed that scientific concern about the dangers of CFCs dipped in the mid-1980s and that no corporations realized the need to consider substitutes. Carolyn Hartmann, a staff attorney with U.S. PIRG, countered that Du Pont has been slow in phasing out CFCs and was especially to blame for the lack of alternatives. "Du Pont halted its search for alternatives for approximately five years in the early 1980s," Hartmann stated. "In 1980, Du Pont and other CFC producers and users joined together to form the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy to fight against CFC regulations. This certainly does not support Du Pont's claim that regulatory concern was on the decline. Five years of important research was lost, and today Du Pont cites the lack of alternatives as a primary reason for why we cannot phase out CFCs before 2000."

multinationalmonitor.org...

The science on the CFC issue was in place in 1974. The patent actually ran out in 1979. Dupont relented from their funding of denialism in 1986. When the GOP entered the whitehouse in the early 80s, they were happy that they could delay any action.

The industry-funded denial then is little different to currently. A bit like groundhog day, really.

reply to post by cushycrux
Nice cartoon! But that blackboard doesn't really make any sense...

• Energy Independence - Explain what CO2 production has to do with domestic production? Oil is oil, and actually the cleanest and easiest to refine oil comes form the Middle East. By switching over to domestic fuels alone, we actually make it harder, more expensive, and more complicated to maintain air quality standards.
  
  
• Preserve Rainforests - Rainforests are made of plant life. Plant life requires carbon dioxide to exist, just as animal life requires oxygen. So exactly how is CO2 dangerous to the rainforests and how will decreasing it improve the rainforests? Maybe the same way depriving someone of oxygen makes them healthier?
  
  
  
• Sustainability - I can only assume you afre speaking of the 'peal oil' prediction... a prediction, I might add, that has yet to be fulfilled. There is a theory out that oil is not produced by dead dinosaurs, but rather by the earth itself. After all carbon and hydrogen, the two necessary components of oil, are both in great abundance inside the planet. Under high temperatures and pressures, and without oxygen to reduce them, it is not a major leap of faith to see where oil is not necessarily anthropogenic in origin.
  
  
• Green Jobs - Where? I could use a job right about now... of any color!
  
  
• Livable Cities - How is decreasing carbon dioxide levels going to make the cities more livable?
  
  
• Renewables - How is reducing carbon dioxide levels going to make anything renewable?
  
  
• Clean Water, Air - How can reducing carbon dioxide levels by the tiny fraction we as a civilzation emit going to improve air quality? You exhale vastly greater CO2 levels with every breath than even the worst predictions predict! Water does not dissolve CO2 at high levels unless it is under high pressure and concentrations... that is how they make seltzer water, which is water with a high CO2 concentration.
  
  
• Healthy Children - Show me one study, just one, that links childhood development problems to carbon dioxide levels that are even close to what is predicted.

Like most of the proponents of CO2 Cap & Trade, you are making incorrect assumptions based on propaganda. CO2 is a colorless, odorless (in any concentrations even remotely close to present or predicted levels) gas which isdirectly responsible for the action of photosynthesis... the basis for the entire food chain of the planet. It is produced any time carbon is reduced (consumed) in an oxygen atmosphere. That includes respiration of any form of animal life (including us), volcanic activity, burning of any carbon-containing compound (which includes wood, coal, oil, plastic, synthetic rubber, and basically anything that can be used for combustion fuel except hydrogen itself). It is present every time you belch, pass gas, or breath, in high concentrations.

Change for the sake of change does not always equal change for the better. Look beyond the propaganda into the science and you will see facts which directly contradict what the 'experts' say. That is called "denying ignorance".

TheRedneck

jrod,

I have heard the same story about Du Pont and I'm not surprised by it either.
The arguement for replacing CFC's is still flawed as far as I'm concerned. I'm not convinced that there is a need to replace these gases. The nonsense we are witnessing now about Climategate is my evidence for this position. I believe that Du Pont may indeed have been protecting their monopoly in the gas market, like all good capitalists would try to do to increase their profits. I also believe that the enviros have been cooking the books and playing loose with the purported data. As a mechanic I don't like using gases that operate at 150psi on the low side and 350+ psi on the high side on equipment sitting next to the Pacific ocean where corrosion is the name of the game. I have had the interesting experience of standing near equipment when it has failed while operating and the ensueing explosions resulting from said failures have been quite exciting. Thankfully I was not hurt in either of these events, but I guarantee that the new gases we are being forced to use will be the cause for some large class action lawsuits in the future. The trial lawyers win again!
I think the science on these gases and their impact is exagerated and flawed, that's my official opinion, but I'm no scientist, neither do I pretend to be one. Some of the scientists making these claims are the same guys accused of cooking the books and have political agendas that makes their science and suppositions questionable.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by sharkman]