Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

What does it really take to convince people that they have been had!?

Some facts would be a good start as opposed to hot air. As for all your scientists that oppose global warming. I studied with them and I now work with them. I know some that sit on the fence, but the general consensus is that the climate change is anthropogenic in nature...

Well I am glad to hear that you are now working with several thousand scientists - must get very crowded in the lab there!

So when Mike Hulme categorically states that only a tiny fraction of those 2500 scientists support AGW - he is lying!?

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by purplemer

Housing does account for some of the energy use and yes it is important to increase energy efficiency in the home. But the biggest usage is industry and that is not going to change until we get our heads around the fact that capitalism and environmental sustainability do not mix.

This is going to vary by region - but you also have to consider a number of other factors, here.

First - very little of the energy we currently use is coming from "renewable" sources. Further - a lot of it is being used in rather inefficient processes. Gasoline used in cars is around 20% efficient - which compared to various applications in power generation and application in industry, is a horrendous way to use that energy.

Industry is also changing - silicon will be replaced by organic carbon constructs (in a lot of applications) - reducing energy requirements for producing those goods immensely. Plastic/polymer conductors are also on the horizon - which greatly changes the prospect of how metals are used in wiring.

Advances in genetic engineering and nanotechnology are also leading to forms of construction and "machining" (if you can call it that) which are far more efficient than any existing methods.

The problem with your argument is that it assumes a static industry and static market demands. This is simply not going to hold true. A changing society will have demands that change - and there will always be new markets to be had to address those changing needs.

Genetic engineering offers many potential solutions to our problems - plants are -incredibly- efficient chemical processing entities. Many compounds currently made in a synthetic manner can be made by plants and stored in ways that can be harvested later. Corn stalks, for example, could be made to contain beneficial drugs like aspirin, or vital compounds for polymer synthesis - all separate of the mature fruit of the plant (what we eat) - and none of this affect the ability to use the biomass for ethanol production (we could even use genetic engineering to improve this process).

Just with the technology that currently exists and can be purchased with a contract tomorrow - you could, with enough capital, build an entire town that operates off of a fraction of the power and resources that any other currently does. It would not be cheap to start it up, just yet - and you would have to have some genuinely intelligent people creating and cross-referencing the plans... but it's possible.

And that doesn't even touch the more advanced things that are 10-20 years out.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by ladykenzie

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies

evidently you are not a scientist. That is how sciences endorses itself. It is the process of peer review.

Right, it is the process of peer review, obviously.
I think you misunderstood though.
JohhnyBGood's point was that they counted every person who reviewed any part of it as an AGW believer, even though a large number of those actually did not endorse the theory; in fact, many of them vehemently disagreed.
The numbers were manipulated and falsely represented.

Everyone needs to be aware that it is impossible to measure the temperature of very dynamic system like the planet Earth.

It is generating heat in the core of the planet.. the hills and valleys all at different temperatures,oceans and currents,rain,cloud,sun,the tides,the cities the people...most of the temperature sensors are in the west near cities and also the Earth is 3 dimensional and of course you have the atmosphere and huge air currents plus the moon and the tidal forces plus the rotation of the Earth resulting in heat and darkness plus sunspots and solar variations.

From the above it is impossible to measure temperature.

it is impossible to measure any meaningful variation of temperatures of less than 5 degrees over a short time scale which is not a geological time frame of 100000 years or more...

These scientists are dishonest.

here is more of their dishonesty...shocking stuff.

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

/// Climate Models ///

they are very dishonest.look here:-

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the

[FOI, temperature data]
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. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

Fraud and dishonesty,breaking the law..imposing carbon taxes and more regulations everywhere..spin and cooking the figures.the whole thing is a huge fraud.

edit on 25-11-2011 by beckybecky because: more info.
edit on 25-11-2011 by beckybecky because: more info.
edit on 25-11-2011 by beckybecky because: more info.
edit on 25-11-2011 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by purplemer

On the issue of CO2, we (the west) always get the blame for the majority of the CO2. Yet the Chinese have 16 ships that together produce more sulfur and CO2 than all the cars in THE WORLD combined.

So why is it that this source of polution is ignored yet North America under Kyoto has the biggest cuts to make? Chinese is exempt. As soon as you give the biggest pollutter a pass based on wanting fairness you loose any moral grounds and it calls into question the whole process.

Scientists who disagree

Lastly here is an article discussing the comments that the late Professor Frederick Seitz made about the IPCC report. He was concerned because after the peer review was done and after the commityhad accepted it, someone went in and deleted all the comments that shed doubt on climate change and even deleted whole studies to make the report appear as if everyone agreed.
Here are some comments he made to the NY times on the problems with IPCC study

This report is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists.

At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included statements like:

None of the studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.

No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the observed climate changes to man-made causes.
Professor Seitz concluded:

I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

Now in fairness Bert Bolin who was the IPCC Chairman 1988 – 1997 came out and publicly said that Professor Seitz was "untrustworthy" and banned the George Marshall Institute from participating in future IPCC studies.

Mr Bolin goes onto say the following about Professor Seitz's claims

I readily verify that the description of the course of events in 1996 is correct but wishes also to draw the attention to another initiative taken by Professor Seitz in April 1998 in the form of a Petition that was circulated widely across the US with the aim to prevent the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

So he admitted that Seitz's claims are correct but then dismisses them because Seitz was a "climate skeptic".

That's the big issue, the climate change priests immediately villify someone who disagrees with them and even when that person is proven correct they dismiss there allegations because of who made them.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 05:21 PM

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

The Climatologists are merely presenting the data. "Cap and Trade" as you call it, is something that some political groups in the USA are suggesting based on what has been done in Europe.
Cap and Trade is Not GREAT in my opinion -- but it has reduced pollution in Europe.

Personally, I'd like to see the Koch brothers spend 3 months in a public stockade, then, bereft of money and power, dropped in Darfur with a cup and a spoon. I'd like to see this country become more Socialist -- and not be embarrassed about it, because it worked after FDR.

I could imagine a new economic system, where, instead of giving BANKS new money for their deposits -- we just give every citizen and certain Stipend, and let the FREE Market coax the money out of them for growth. We end our current patent system, and use something like Wikipedia to track all new inventions and copyright, and then we would give those people NEW MONEY, based on how often some company used their ideas -- because ALL NEW growth is probably based on new ideas -- not on repeating the old ones.

What you are describing looks so much like ATS's star system and attachments, (on the left in the black box for each poster) Getting back to the e-mails, it looks as if the science has long become factionlised anyway, well it is since we still have the proponents of AGW, and climate change each with their own particular nuance so 'making the best spin' is not too strong a description.
edit on 25-11-2011 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:14 PM
I dont get it. These aren't all the GW scientist. How does this make global warming false?

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 07:46 PM
What we have is a bunch of the usual suspects,( NWO insiders) forming the Club of Rome and its offshoots - with its 'stated' belief that 'industrialisation and sustainability' are not compatible, that the worlds population growth need to be stopped, that a world government is needed and that 'democracy is not capable of managing the transition.'

That what is needed is a 'common enemy' to unite mankind, whether real or imagined.(mind you in NWO style, this is likely just a front agenda to hook the lower minions in)

Along comes Al Gore who has latched on to the theory that man made 'greenhouse gas' contributions might have a warming effect on the earth, and realises he can use this 'threat' as a stalking horse to hide the C.o.R's whole agenda behind.

All he needed to do was build a big enough coalition of interested parties whose agendas were furthered by this and none of them would care if the threat was real or not.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by beckybecky



This, I'm sure is just a REPEAT of the same old denier crap. Cherry-picking, exaggerations, lies, propaganda, pseudo-science, failure to note context, misuse of words, and fabrications all in the name of discrediting an INNOCENT field of science whose science was largely settled DECADES AGO. The only reason people debate the existence of global warming is because A) Solutions threaten the establishment and wealth/power brokers of this planet; and B) These elites have injected anti-scientific propaganda into politics and the media in order to deceive idiots into thinking AGW is a hoax. I HAVE RESEARCHED ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING MORE THAN JUST ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS WEBSITE, AND I GUARANTEE IT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING A HOAX. I HAVE RESEARCHED EVERY SINGLE DENIER ARGUMENT AND THEY'VE ALL PROVEN COMPLETELY FALSE, ALL OF THEM.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:33 PM
^ Disinfo agents at their finest once again. It's always so interesting that these pro GW people start to get very angry and...erratic in situations where they realise that they're cornered and the info against them is strong. Very predictable. Always happens, they try and vilify and just get into this fit of rage. Nice try, but you won't stop us. Soon the truth will be shown to all.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:38 PM

Originally posted by shadowland8
^ Disinfo agents at their finest once again. It's always so interesting that these pro GW people start to get very angry and...erratic in situations where they realise that they're cornered and the info against them is strong. Very predictable. Always happens, they try and vilify and just get into this fit of rage. Nice try, but you won't stop us. Soon the truth will be shown to all.

Disinfo??? Are you KIDDING ME??? Deniers have ALWAYS been the disinfo agents. This isn't a debate... the debate is over. The scientific community doesn't debate the existence of AGW anymore since the 70's/80's. You're a damn fool if you think there is any scientific doubt. The ONLY "scientists" who publicly doubt the existence of AGW have been PROVEN to have financial ties to fossil fuel industries and ideological ties to right-wing/industry think-tanks, they have also PROVEN to have lied, exaggerated, and used bad science/logic to push their global warming denial.

I'm not erratic, but I am angry. I'm angry that huge swaths of moronic sheep have swallowed the global warming denial propaganda because it feeds their paranoid need for EVERYTHING to be a hoax and also their cowardly need to have EVERYTHING BE OKAY in the end. NEWS FLASH, not everything is a conspiracy and not everything has a happy ending. You need to WAKE UP TO REALITY.

You keep talking about the truth... but you know nothing of it. Every single time you deniers are proven wrong with TRUTH and FACTS, you retreat, change the subject, deny more, and eventually make the SAME DEBUNKED POINT OVER AGAIN. I'm sick of this crap, you're not fighting AGAINST the establishment when you spread this denial propaganda, you are fighting FOR them. Don't you get it???

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Ah yes of course - the three impartial enquiries.

.................Of course this conclusion is hardly surprising given that, as we have previously reported, the so called “independent” investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell – a vehement supporter of the notion of anthropogenic global warming.

While absurdly billing himself as impartial and unconnected to climate science, Russell is intimately involved with The Royal Society of Edinburgh. The RSE has thrown its weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and living standards.

This organization has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. For the climategate inquiry,

Russell constructed a panel of “experts” that share exactly the same views, clearly contradicting the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a “predetermined view on climate change and climate science”. Russell has called for “a concerted and sustained campaign to win hearts and minds” to restore confidence in the CRU scientists.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:04 PM

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I dont get it. These aren't all the GW scientist. How does this make global warming false?

East Anglia is the center that controls most of the data that the other scientists use to come to the conclusions on global warming etc. They also run one of the climate research magazines. So if they are cherry picking data then they are skewing others research. Also we know they deliberately keep articles from being printed that contradict there theories (as mentioned in the first round of emails) then they can also keep people from seeing unbiased papers.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Except that the same scientists who were linked to the emails where in on your "independant" evaluation of the emails and that doesn't fly with me. They should have scientists from outside the very close knit Climate cult reviewing the emails.

I too have researched the info and the single most telling item I've read is the nasa study that showed that Mars and Venus' surface temps have gone up by the same amounts during the same period as earths have. In fact every planet in our solar system has increased in temperature over the last 100 years. The sun has also increased in temperature.

So unless you want to propose that there is a society on every other planet in our solar system who has hiddn from us till now and who have technology at our level (ie burn fossil fuels) then this single piece of data shows that the vast majority of the temperature increase is actually being caused by something other than us.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 10:48 PM
Truly, I believe that we are responsible for global warming. Like .0001% of it! We drive cars and fart. Whoodeedo. Global warming. Come on people, get a freakin grip! The d-bags telling us that the globe is warming because we are here are the same a-holes that told us the world was flat. Shut up already!

Listen, a good read of "National Geographic" could tell you everything you need to know. Just subtract 3 or so million or billion years from their BS and you can get it... It is in plain site. Nothing hidden! Discernment is the key.

I love this site... But, please, please, start connecting the dots people. Think about semantics! There is really nothing to "chemtrails" for example. However, there is, geo-engineering. Get my drift? If you want to play the "game", learn the darn rules!

Sorry for being "grumpy" but I tire with the ignorance...

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:05 PM

Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming

5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all' nsors.html

The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.

‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.

'They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.

Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones - who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - said: '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.

posted on Nov, 25 2011 @ 11:59 PM
reply to post by Eurisko2012

The last ice age was a lot longer than that -and I believe we don't know enough about the natural cycles of climate and whether or not they will indeed repeat themselves. What we do know is that C02 spiked dramatically at the time of the industrial revolution and has climbed quickly ever since - way faster than the natural changes that have been recorded through the geological and fossil records.

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 12:05 AM
reply to post by jdub297

Here's the bottom line - natural climate change has indeed occurred quite often in the past -but the changes documented over the last 200 years have happened much faster than any recorded natural events. Simply put, we have lost the context of geologic time - this is happening way too fast for it to be natural.

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by Chemley

No - actually the flat earth folks didn't believe in science either...

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

First, please allow me to alter your issues just a bit:

1. Why?
2.What percentage is human?
3.What percentage is something else?
4.Can we do anything to stop/change it?
5.Should we?
6.What would work if we wanted to?

I believe that there should be an additional issue, that really isn't tied to causation, but addresses effect.

7. Since the climate is changing (regardless of cause) what steps can we take today to help mankind adapt to any such future changes?

In my mind, it would be wiser to take a significant portion of the $100,000,000,000 the IPCC/AGW advocates says we should pay each year to mitigate CO2 effects, and assign it to number 7, to minimze the consequences of change, even if it doesn't come.

As for the others, I think answering 1 will also cover 2 and 3.

The real problem with the AGW issue as it exists today, is that many have already proclaimed that they have the answers to 1,2 and 3, when it is absolutely clear that they do not.

As I think I pointed out elsewhere, the CRU/IPCC modeling had projected a 5C to 9C increase in average temperature by 2100 given a "business as usual" business/political environment. However, government data show that while CO2 emissions have increased 33%, global average temperatures have increased only 0.11C or remained flat over the corresponding time-frame.

This refutes the CRU/IPCC standing presumption.

Until the AGW advocates back-off from their adamant insistence that "the science is settled," we will be misdirecting and wasting the limited resources they demand and we don't have.

Science is not conducted in secret. Results of experiments and measurements are freely shared for independent confirmation or refutation. True theories are by definition "falsifiable." They can be tested and replicated.

Science is never "settled."
A "consensus" does not mean "correct."
AGW advocates who assert some sort of proprietary interest in their theory or conclusion are not conducting science.

You are correct that these are the issues to be addressed.
They will never be so long as AGW advocates insist that "the science is settled;" or that a "consensus" opinion must be accepted as fact.

Thanks for the reply.


p.s.: after posting this, I read a reply from NoHierarchy that, I think, proves my part:

the debate is over. The scientific community doesn't debate the existence of AGW anymore since the 70's/80's. You're a damn fool if you think there is any scientific doubt.

Any legitimate scientific inquiry encourages doubt, for example: "Come on, prove my theory/conclusion is wrong." Failure to do so will strengthen or reinforce the tested proposition. Legitimate questions result in refinement or rejection.


edit on 26-11-2011 by jdub297 because: (no reason given)

new topics
top topics
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in