Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

page: 2
179
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


Could you possible share your deep scientific understanding of the subject, and also explain exactly how Australia's Carbon Tax regime will reduce climate change and global warming? I'd like to see some real numbers, because, you know, it's important to be scientific about this...
edit on 25-11-2011 by Snappahead because: readability




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Snappahead
 


My question is why reducing carbon dioxide emissions are a bad thing? All of the Global Warming deniers are terrified that cleaning up the environment is a big scam. Why is that?

My problem is that Australia is the nation suffering the MOST from Global Warming, yet the real culprits in it's perpetuation are the US, China, and Western Europe. If we had programs in place to solve this problem, Queensland may not burn to the ground next year, or any number of other catastrophes you have experienced.

18th, 19th, 20th, 21st Century and still we burn, burn, burn.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Hmmm, after all that has come to light in the past couple of years.. Should we be surprised that Science is as corrupt as everything else? Just another crime family.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


I appreciate your opinion, and certainly don't disagree that an overall reduction on our dependence on fossil fuels is probably a good thing. However, I was actually hoping you could respond with some scientific facts about how much Australia's carbon tax will reduce global warming. You indicated that everybody else was ignorant of the science, so I'd truly like to be educated - no sarcasm intended.

If you can't provide any scientific evidence, then that's fine too, but it would be good to just say it rather than change the subject.

By the way, the fires are in Western Australia, not Queensland. Are you suggesting they are linked to increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
I see no one in this thread understands science, it's processes, and how scientists communicate with each other.


Being new to this site, you should search for the lengthy, well thought-out and scientific discussions over AGW.
Your unfounded criticism reveals your bias or your ignorance of facts or science.


There are more scientists than this that work on the issue of Global Warming, anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.


A basic misrepresentation, frequently relied upon by AGW advocates is that correlation equals causation.

The facts prove otherwise.

The last 10 years have seen worldwide CO2 emissions increase by 33%.
U.S. Energy Information Agency, International Energy Statistics

Yet the most that can be agreed upon is that temperatures this decade have increased by only 0.3C, and many contend that have have been flat.
UAH Satellite-Based Temperatures


"Carbon taxes" and offsets are just one tool to help combat this issue

The Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol have wholly failed to accomplish their "scientifically supported" political objectives.

EU and UK carbon-trading schemes have been disasters, creating wealth for the smart traders, and doing nothing to contain CO2.


the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would take nearly a century to be scrubbed out naturally


There has always been CO2 in the atmosphere, frequently at vastly-higher levels; it will never be "scrubbed out."

You are either an AGW shill or completely uninformed.


I mean, God forbid we plant trees-wait, the logging industry would throw a fit!


Search for the threads on tree-cover INCREASE and carbon sequestration on this site.


Well, lets build more efficient cars-wait, the oil companies will throw a fit!


Why would they throw a fit? They'll still be selling natural gas to the power plants for electricity for electric cars, and can raise the price of WTI to $150/bbl; it's happened before.


The real enemies of the environment are big business and people somehow convinced that stopping the cascade of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is un-American.


Every business wants to increase its efficiency so that it uses LESS power, rather than more. American CO2 emissions have DECREASED over the last decade as industry increased efficiency.

Your propositions are ridiculous and completely unsupportable in any rational way.

deny ignorance!

jw
edit on 25-11-2011 by jdub297 because: typing in the dark



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by Snappahead
 


My question is why reducing carbon dioxide emissions are a bad thing? All of the Global Warming deniers are terrified that cleaning up the environment is a big scam. Why is that?

My problem is that Australia is the nation suffering the MOST from Global Warming, yet the real culprits in it's perpetuation are the US, China, and Western Europe. If we had programs in place to solve this problem, Queensland may not burn to the ground next year, or any number of other catastrophes you have experienced.

18th, 19th, 20th, 21st Century and still we burn, burn, burn.


All of the IPCC "projections" have been proven false.

We can see just how far-fetched the claims of global warming activists are by comparing real-world emissions data and real-world temperature data versus global warming predictions. Scientist-activists at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, for example, in 2009 produced a pie chart showing the predicted likelihood of various temperature scenarios through the end of the century. According to the pie chart, there was a better than 50% chance that under a business-as-usual scenario global temperatures would rise more than 5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Moreover, the chart predicted a 9% chance of temperatures rising more than 7 degrees Celsius, but less than a 1% chance of temperatures rising less than 3 degrees Celsius this century.

Let’s compare those predictions to real-world data. As the Department of Energy report on 2010 emissions shows, global carbon dioxide emissions are rising more rapidly than anticipated under a business-as-usual scenario. This means that global temperatures should be rising even faster than predicted by the scientist-activists at the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Yet temperatures have risen merely 0.2 to 0.3 degrees Celsius during the past third of a century, and have not risen at all during the past decade. Giving global warming activists the benefit of the doubt and assuming that the recent pause in global warming is a mere temporary condition, the earth is still on a pace for less than 1 degree of warming during the 21st century, despite the scientist-activists assigning a greater-than-99% chance of at least 3 degrees warming by century’s end.

The fact that this relatively minor warming is occurring while emissions are rising faster than expected adds more weight to the skeptical argument.

www.forbes.com...

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
As far as the 'the real enemy is logging companies' goes, my dad is a geologist who has worked for a big company that does a lot of logging for thirty five years and I know the company well. For any tree they cut down they plant ten more. They buy huge plots of land of hundreds or even thousands of acres just to plant trees and provide a natural home for wildlife being run out of their native land. They work to save endangered species without capturing them and sticking them in unnatural surroundings.They don't cut down any old growth. They do more for the environment that most 'environmentalist groups.' But still they are constantly battling the image of being earth-killers because they are a logging company.

'Environmentalist groups' are constantly booby trapping their properties, throwing explosives over their fences, etc. He has even had colleagues killed in this way over the years he has worked for this company, which you have probably heard of, and possibly dislike due to disinfo that environmentally impassioned people have told you.

Please please please don't believe everything you are told. I don't mean to say that people who care about the environment are idiots or fools. I care deeply about the environment, and I think everyone should appreciate the dwindling gifts it gives us and work harder to preserve what we have left.

But those looking to profit search for a niche and become chameleons to fill it. They will tell you "If you care about the environment you have to __________, and if you don't, you need to feel really guilty because it means you hate the environment and everything will be your fault." Wolves in sheep's clothing. It's great to care about the environment but propaganda comes in all shapes and sizes and yes, as a previous poster said, science is corrupted, just like everything else.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.


(With all due respect), that is a little bit insulting because yes, we presumably all made it past third grade and we know how to read a bar graph.
The argument isn't that no one has ever presented evidence of global warming.
The argument is that there is an ulterior motive, an agenda, data is skewed, manipulated, picked and rejected, etc before these 'bar graphs' were put together and presented, because someone somewhere has personal interests and something to gain.
edit on 25-11-2011 by ladykenzie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
If anyone is interested in looking through the files, there are links on several sites:
Watts Up With That
Climate Audit
TalkBloke

If you want the origin of the info:

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the "sheer volume of material" meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

In the new release a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves "FOIA" then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics.

The Guardian

This appears to be a greater treasure trove of denial of information, alteration of data and politically-motivated scamming than the 1st.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

www.forbes.com...

Most AGW believers claim that "big money" is the driving force behind skepticism.
In reality, it's big tax money and grant money fueling the AGW charade, as they admit.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”


How sad.

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.


It's too bad the OP did not even try to include any of this in the first post.
Was it laziness, or an intentional effort to make it seem that this was "much ado about nothing."

deny ignorance

jw




edit on 25-11-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


Thanks for posting this!

I really hope AGW enthusiasts will take the time to objectively read through this stuff, and realize that it's OK to question the things that have been shoved down their throats and be open to the possibility of a game-changer. I have to admit that I used to believe in AGW and eventually realizing I had been had was a hard pill to swallow! You can appreciate nature and care about the environment AND deny ignorance at the same time.




posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I just wonder how much more of this utter utter bs we will all swallow before we decide that it is time for a change, a change where the people hold the power instead of where the royals and their ilk across the world hold it. Is it morally correct that 1 family for example has amassed a fortune equal to half of the worlds resources? that same family manipulates the entire western system and has its claws even deeper into the rest of the world.

Really think we need to remove the Rothchilds and their ilk, these people also run the scientists and the big human welfare(joke) projects.

I would expect no more than what we hae regarding climategate, the whole system is manipulated and corrupt, just look at who is behind it.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
I'm seeing mostly segments of emails and not the entire document. I am going to assume that many if not all of the quotes and excerpts are being taken out of context. that would be my guess



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CthuluPrime
I'm seeing mostly segments of emails and not the entire document. I am going to assume that many if not all of the quotes and excerpts are being taken out of context. that would be my guess


You do not have to presume anything. I've already [rovided the links to the archives.

Go look and see.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


It really doesn't change the fact they have openly admitted to presenting ONLY evidence that supports their case.

I just really wished it was black and white.

I know for a fact Carbon tax will not work because companies will just pass the tax onto the customer and in the end we end up paying our own Carbon tax and also the carbon tax lumped onto us by passing the buck.

No amount of government compensation will compensate us for the massive amounts of increases in prices of consumer products and services due to companies passing on the tax and blaming it on the fact things are more expensive to make/supply now due to the Carbon Tax.

It's just the Government looking after big industry yet again helping them increase their profits while we also increase the revenue for the government.

Carbon Tax is not the solution to a shady problem. AND the planet will create another ice age and correct itself in the worst case scenario which is probably good for us anyway.
edit on 25-11-2011 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


Not offended.

I for one know that the word "trick" doesn't mean something evil is happening.

Here's an example: "the trick to hitting a baseball is keeping your eye on the ball".

By your "logic" that sentence implies all baseball players are evil cheats, as I can frame their ability with the word trick.

In fact, the trick to reading these emails without freaking out, is to ratchet down your paranoia.

As far as the second damning quote, guess what... you ALSO chose to show us only part of the information, to frame the debate... I guess that also makes you completely untrustworthy. Noted.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
These definitely appear to be the genuine article. There are estimates that there are a further 250,000 emails in the encrypted archive which accompanied the release. This has been out there for three days already and, as usual, the MSM are doing their best to ignore the elephant in the living room.

There's a useful searchable database of the emails at foia2011.org

Going to be very interesting to see what's found amongst this new leak and what effect it has on the upcoming Durban conference.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by Snappahead
 


My question is why reducing carbon dioxide emissions are a bad thing? All of the Global Warming deniers are terrified that cleaning up the environment is a big scam. Why is that?

My problem is that Australia is the nation suffering the MOST from Global Warming, yet the real culprits in it's perpetuation are the US, China, and Western Europe. If we had programs in place to solve this problem, Queensland may not burn to the ground next year, or any number of other catastrophes you have experienced.

18th, 19th, 20th, 21st Century and still we burn, burn, burn.




thats because its nature, nature, nature.

and queensland didnt burn last year...it flooded, flooded, flooded. just like it has every other la nina cycle.

and victoria burned the year before because of drought, drought, drought. just like australia has had massive fires during el nino cycles.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:11 AM
link   
There has been a large group over at WUWT going threw and posting the interesting ones ..last I looked the thread was up to 1000 posts .. wattsupwiththat.com...

there are up dates and side links to individual discussions to put some of the emails in context UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.

UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?

UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.

UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank

UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.

UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I have to know: Are you (in your vast wisdom and from all your studies) saying that man and greenhouse gasses and depletion of the forests and trees and pollution of the oceans are not contributing to the warming of the earth?

Are you saying human generated emissions are not hazardous for the planet because a certain number of scientists are breaking away from previously accepted theory and saying they are not?

You are suggesting Al Gore - the freak who went on a wilderness trek in despondency after losing the election - Remember him coming down from the mountains somewhere with long hair and a beard looking for all the world like grizzly Adams? Yeah you are saying this same guy is all of a sudden not an anti establishment freak but suddenly he is so preppy and materialistic he is into carbon trading?


Think about this a moment...

Now who would want to call Al Gore and all those previously respected climatologists liars?

Who stands to make any money on THAT other position?
And since "making money" is your standard for judging truth - shouldn't you be counting those dollars?

Lets see, what trusted and respected group could this be we are listening to now...Is it

The teachers association? NO

Center for Science in the Public Interest? NO

Oceans and Atmospheric Society? NO


Could it be the oil and paper industry?


For a group of people who are supposed to be so smart ...so cunning


You climbed on board and bolster the oil industry and Billions in profits. You bandy about their batch of misguided science instead of the alarmists who care about the planet because you like what the oil companies are telling you better. AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO CALL PEOPLE WHO ARE DEFENDING THE EARTH FROM RAPISTS

EVIL?



Sure, this frees you from guilt, responsibility and the effort of funding and searching for better answers and sources of alternative energy. What do you care what is left of the planet? That is the grand kids problem. You will be dead. You don't HAVE to be right too.



posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ladykenzie
 


HA! makes scence, in australia we just got the carbon tax! a pointless tax that the government passed even without the australia peoples vote, its highly unconstructive and does not solve the problem of polution.





top topics
 
179
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join