Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

page: 8
179
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


It must be nice to live in a world of denial, eh?

Keep on denying it while you people whine about the weather changing.

The conspiracy here is keeping Americans dumb and blind to obvious changes in our climate and good golly, it's working!




posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


That is, again, glib.

Scientists care a lot less about funding, as a group, than corporations do about profits. In many instances the debate has fallen along the scientists v. corporations line and I'll always trust scientists, as a group, over corporations.

Every time.


Of course you will, duh!!!!

They're your priests!!!!!!!


Jaden.

Please people stop reponding to these morons, that wouldn't know real science if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


This kind of blind deference to "scientists" reminds me of an old radio parody show called "Ask Mr. Science."
It always ended with the host's cautionary reminder, "He knows more than you do."
And Mr. Science's qualifications: "I have a Masters Degree in Science!"

There's a philosophical truism that many people feel safer if they are wrong in a group than if they are right alone.
AGW depends upon this, writ large.


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



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
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.


www.infowars.com...


You know you just linked infowars right...?



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by exile1981
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.

www.globalresearch.ca...

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.



Yeah right... NASA study that shows Venus and Mars are experiencing global warming and the sun is to blame. WRONG, DEAD WRONG. This study doesn't exist.

Educate yourself:

www.skepticalscience.com...

and



and




posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
There is a prophecy in my culture (Kanienkehaka) that when the trees started dying from the top down the end would be near. Trees have been dying from acid rain for quite some time now. The Inuit of the Canadian north are saying all kinds of changes are happening there. Seeing birds that have never come that far north before, they can't make igloos any more when they go hunting. I prefer to believe the people that see it happening first hand. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and say it's not happening. We're all responsible and we have to something about it. Granted, a carbon tax may not be the best way to go about it. How many people on this planet are willing to reduce their carbon emissions voluntarily?



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by alonzo730
 


The Mohawk people have a long history of self-reliance and adaptation to a changing envirnment.

How much effort would you say should be put into finding ways to cope with what may be an inevitable change, compared to trying a potentially wrong and very costly possible way to stop the changes themselves?

>I0
jw



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by exile1981
 





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.


And rightly so should we get the blame. Lets look at America and China. The US produces just under 20% of the worlds CO2 and China just over 20%. China has about 1.3 billion people and the US has just over 300 million.
So as you can see there is a very disproportional use of carbon on behalf of the US...



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Thank you for your reply. I was looking at industry atm, yes. However I am aware that the nature of industry changes over time and so do technological advancements. The advancement of technology gives us problems to our solutions but it also causes more problems. Look at the problems of modern society. How many of them are caused by our advancements in technology.
It is not correct to think that technology will continue to come up with the answers to our problems. Again we are taking a gamble. This is a technocentric view of the world. Remember it is one idea among others. It does not mean it is the correct course of action.
The course of action being taking is being dictated by our present economic model. This is the Achilles heal of our attempts if sustainability.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





How much effort would you say should be put into finding ways to cope with what may be an inevitable change


Most of the western world would be unable to cope with the outcome of cliimate change if that outcome ends up inducing an ice age... You would die..!
As you said it 'may be an inevitable change' which also means you conceed it may not be an inevatable change. The gamble is not worth taking.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
Oh oh!

Science Journal has just published research from Oregon State, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, University of Oregon, and the ICREA and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Funded by the U.S.A.

It is entitled: "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum."

It can be found here: www.princeton.edu...

It says (in summary):

From a scientific standpoint, there is agreement that increases in atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
The science is not settled as to how much the planet will warm due to a doubling of CO2 as there is not scientific agreement as to how sensitive the planet is to a change in forcing.
If the planet does not amplify a change in forcing the planetary temperature will increase 1.2C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 0.028% to 0.056%.

The data and analysis in this study significantly reduces the maximum expected temperature for a doubling of CO2.

infofeeder.info...

Which means that even if AGW is true, a CO2 value even 25% higher than the IPCC predicts will only increase temperatures 1.2C.

That is far, far lower than the limit the most ardent AGW advocates say is acceptable.

Which of the AGW advocates here are still going to insist the"science is settled?"

deny ignorance!

jw



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 


I asked you for proof. You failed to provide any. I will therefore conclude that you are just stating an opinion. One opinion among billions of others on the planet..
As we say over here.... 'Put up or shut up'




posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by jdub297
 





How much effort would you say should be put into finding ways to cope with what may be an inevitable change


Most of the western world would be unable to cope with the outcome of cliimate change if that outcome ends up inducing an ice age... You would die..!
As you said it 'may be an inevitable change' which also means you conceed it may not be an inevatable change. The gamble is not worth taking.


Firsat, I didn't ask you anything. I asked somneone whose heritage shows an ability to evaluate risk, adapt and survive.

Anbyway, you didn't even answer the question I asked. Try harder.

According to a slew of international scientists just published in Science, the most that can be expected from a doubling of CO2 is less than 2C that AGW advocates say is acceptable.

So, there is no gamble and no risk, according to this study.

Why did you not answer the question I asked?

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



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Lets look at America and China. The US produces just under 20% of the worlds CO2 and China just over 20%. China has about 1.3 billion people and the US has just over 300 million.
So as you can see there is a very disproportional use of carbon on behalf of the US...


You neglect to note tht US use has DECREASED over the past 10 years, while China's has increased more than 100%. You also neglect to note that a majority of the China emissiomns include "black soot" the most dangerous emission to glaicers, water, etc. Cherry-picking.
jw



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 

I dont care if you asked my anything. You are on a public discusion forum. If you do no want your comments answered send someone a private message instead.

You have looked at different studies and models to myself. May I ask who funded your science and more to the point a 2c change would cause massive and drastic change. A 2c global change would mean greater changes at the poles. The polar regions are a major factor in the regulation of the gobal climate.

What do you think a few degree change at the poles would to all that fresh water locked up in ice. What do you think would happen when all the fresh water melts and mixes with the thermohaline currents.

Well if you dont know I will give you some idea. Here in the UK it is very possible it would halt the gulf stream that keep the UK warm. Without we would have the same temperature as Russia and could well plummet us into an iceage...
Think what you want.. This is the truth...



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Play with the figures all you want you are sounding like a fish out of water thrashing about to find the river again. I will put it simply. If every country on the planet used as much energy as America. Planet earth would be dead...

What is being proposed in the future is that we pay the poorer countries to help them reduce there carbon levels and supply them with the tech to do this.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by ladykenzie
 





in fact, many of them vehemently disagreed.


put you money where you mouth is. show me some of the papers they produced to disagree with the theory. it sounds like heresay to me....



A simple google search will link you to over 900 peer reviewed papers contesting AGW

www.globalwarminghoax.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 





A simple google search will link you to over 900 peer reviewed papers contesting AGW


A simple google search for 'the moon is made of cheese' will link me 32,000,000 webpages... Cmon bud get a grip of reality here. Cannot you not see how absurd your arguments are.

I looked at your link and none of the references are peer reviewed papers. There are letters and publications but no hard science there.. Do you not think at this point you should question why you blindly follow something with no evidence.......
edit on 26-11-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 


LMAO - looks like you've believed everything your large corporate conservative master have been spoon feeding you. The only conspiracy in this debate concerns the billions of dollars the oil companies have spent to make many Americans like yourself believe climate change itself to be a conspiracy. A brilliant plan but you've been had.



posted on Nov, 26 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 





A simple google search will link you to over 900 peer reviewed papers contesting AGW


A simple google search for 'the moon is made of cheese' will link me 32,000,000 webpages... Cmon bud get a grip of reality here. Cannot you not see how absurd your arguments are.

I looked at your link and none of the references are peer reviewed papers. There are letters and publications but no hard science there.. Do you not think at this point you should question why you blindly follow something with no evidence.......
edit on 26-11-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)


Um well let's look at the first paper shall we........................www.nature.com...



Nature 316, 591 - 596 (15 August 1985); doi:10.1038/316591a0 A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice C. LORIUS*, J. JOUZEL†, C. RITZ*, L. MERLIVAT†, N. I. BARKOV‡, Y. S. KOROTKEVICH† & V. M. KOTLYAKOV§

*Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Géophysique de l'Environnement, CNRS, BP96, 38402 Saint Martin d'Héres Cedex, France †Laboratoire de Géochimie Isotopique DPC, CEN Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France ‡The Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Fontanka 34, Leningrad 191104, USSR §Institute of Geography, Academy of Sciences of USSR, Staronometry, St 29, Moscow 109017, USSR

During much of the Quaternary, the Earth's climate has undergone drastic changes most notably successive glacial and interglacial episodes. The past 150 kyr includes such a climatic cycle: the last interglacial, the last glacial and the present holocene interglacial. A new climatic–time series for this period has been obtained using δ18 O data from an Antarctic ice core.





new topics
 
179
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join