Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying 'Science' Elitists

The earth responds to changes brought by men rather slowly. The massive industrial activity that pollutes the earth will eventually get curtailed by population elimination (war) rather than natural calamities.

There is no massive natural calamity that threatens human civilization on the horizon (next 100 years). So people rest easy.

There will be events like coastal flooding, hurricanes, extreme heat and cold as a result of the human brought changes to the environment, but nothing on the scale that merits panic.

However people should watch out for economic and military developments. A massive war is highly likely in the next 10 years. The west is consistently losing grip on political and economic power that held its supremacy for so long. A change in empire is likely.

reply to post by burntheships


Well it don't make much difference really. We are not going to stop burning fossil fuels. If truly this is resulting in an atmospheric change that is going to roast us, well that will be our fate. Humans will never give up on this irreplaceable energy source. As long as we got it we're going to burn it.

I love all this talk about fake science, conspiracies to fool us. Talk like this makes you feel good because it makes it look like someone is in control. The reality is no one is in control. everyone is out for their own personal interest, as short sighted as this can be. Wisdom is no longer something we look for in our leaders. Wisdom is no longer something we consider to be important. Knowing that 2+2=4 is not wisdom. This is just something that occurs regularly in our physical universe and we think we are pretty bright for noticing it. Wisdom is knowing that adding 2 to an already existing 2 will make 4, but that 4 will have implications that must be considered.

We no longer consider but plunge headlong into an orgy of self gratification. Humans are just about to reach their potential and go into extinction with a smugness unequaled.

Originally posted by smurfy
reply to post by JrDavis

 

Without quoting your post, (in case I get a slap) I agree that Aluminum can become a hazard, There are concerns about the cumulative affects from different sources that we all might encounter during a lifetime, that is the catchpenny. At any given time there should be a need to know just how many actual applications that are deliberate for whatever reason, along with our natural environment. I don't know if that is realistically monitored all round, but I doubt it.

edit on 28-3-2013 by smurfy because: Text.

No there isn't and you're right. We should have an application that does monitor this all. This would cut the debate right out.

That way we can say "60% of the aluminum in this region was contributed by X". Where X would be the source which is contributing the 60%.

That is why this is a conspiracy. Well in some eyes. Because it's easy to say, The aluminum is from factories, pollution, etc.

The aluminum isn't coming from the crust and then being oxidized lol. It's foolish and very ignorant to say this.

It isn't turning into sub micron size by simple dusting off the earth's crust. Then coming down in amounts of 1010mg/kg

That is also what makes this such a scary situation. There is no one monitoring the skies like that to test and make sure that this isn't happening.

To believe the Government would be pretty dumb. Since they have been so honest before.

Like I said before, The scientists talked about using 10-20k megatons in the atmosphere to manipulate and control weather.

Now we find high level traces in rain, air, and soil?

With all the debate on health issues aside (Believe me anyone in the medical field will say it's hazardous in those quantities, That's why they can test you for them) I think it's safe to say that with the evidence being found at the crime scene. We can accuse the ones who said they were going to do.

reply to post by MysticStrummer

It's been done, There have been multiple independent investigations of the so-called Climategate emails. No scientific misconduct was found. The only way to come up with the "no warming in 15 years" conclusion is to ignore the oceans, which make up 2/3 of the planet and retain 90% of it's heat. The oceans are still warming, therefore so is the planet. I'm not sure why I bother, since it's obvious how this website is slanted for the most part. "Deny Ignorance" is a complete joke.

Actually, the "no warming" is proven by several independent studies AND supported by the pro-AGW site "skeptical science." Here's what their own data reveal (and recently acknowledged by such AGW "luminaries" as Hansen, Pachauri, Trenberth and the MET Office)for land sea and satellite observations:

Satellite
For RSS, NOT significant for 23 years.
Trend 0.130 ± 0.136 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

For UAH, NOT significant for 19 years.
Trend 0.143 ± 0.173 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

Land/ocean
For Hacrut3, NOT significant for 19 years.
Trend 0.098 ±- 0.113 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

For Hacrut4, NOT significant for 18 years.
Trend 0.098 ± 0.111 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

For GISS, NOT significant for 17 years.
Trend: 0.113 ± 0.122 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996

For NOAA, NOT significant for 18 years
Trend 0.090 ± 0.106 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

Land
For NOAA, NOT significant for 16 years
Trend: 0.139 ± 0.203 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997

For BEST, NOT significant for 16 years
Trend: 0.182 ± 0.243 °C/decade at the two sigma level from 1997
...
www.skepticalscience.com...

These guys are often cited as authority for "debunking" skeptics, but their own figures support the lack of significant warming.

deny ignorance
indeed

jw

I've done a research paper and debate on this topic.
First, there is a difference between pollution and climate change. Noone is arguing that pollution doesn't exist.
Secondly, arguing climate change doesn't exist is ridiculous as there is indisputable proof that climate change has happened over the course of time (and well before humans).
The argument should be about anthropogenic global warming- Does it exist??
The main piece of data used to support anthropogenic global warming is the famed hockey stick model. Supposedly scientific, the man who created this hockey stick effect refused to disclose the data he used to come up with the results (even after being prompted several times), making the model impossible to replicate.

As far as ice sheets go, they melt and form periodically. In November, I read an article about how the ice sheets in Antarctica were at a record thickness for that time in the season. About a month later, there was an article about how the ice sheets have thinned to unprecedented levels. There is no standard measuring techniques and I find the ice sheets to be poor evidence for or against anthropegenic global warming. Antarctica wasn't always covered in ice without the help of man to warm the planet and climate shifts happen naturally over the course of thousands of years. The icecaps have melted naturally and they could be melting naturally now as we are currently marred in a warm period.

It is important to note that this is not an unprecedented warming period. The medieval ages saw similar global average temperatures.

The climate-gate advocates will say that the vast amounts of C02 pumped into the atmosphere has caused global average temperatures to rise.
It is true that global average temperatures have risen. They have risen by a staggering 0.8 degrees celcius in...wait for it....140 years. Just to put this in perspective, this is not an unusual temperature change in terms of the past few thousand years.

Looking at an even shorter time span, the past 16 years there has been no warming at all (plateau effect). Meanwhile, during that time span C02 output continued to increase every year (except a slight dip in the 2008-9 recession). If you look on a more local level, Chinese C02 output increased much faster in the past decade than globally. But when measuring China's average yearly temperatures, they actually declined the past decade. There is no correlation between C02 emissions and temperature increases.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Absolutely, to be sure another aspect of the AGW is the taxation scheme, and that is
key to understanding why "The Game" as in the OP. The Game is not for fun,
it is so they have a plan to manipulate peoples opinions, make them believe in a fake
boogey man so that people will roll over once again and pay up another tax.
We are already taxed for pollution, recycling tax on everything from computers to tires,
to plastic bottles, propane etc

They have done very well with the whitwashing of AGW, its a nicely painted
tax and spend scheme.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Absolutely, to be sure another aspect of the AGW is the taxation scheme, and that is
key to understanding why "The Game" as in the OP. The Game is not for fun,
it is so they have a plan to manipulate peoples opinions, make them believe in a fake
boogey man so that people will roll over once again and pay up another tax.
We are already taxed for pollution, recycling tax on everything from computers to tires,
to plastic bottles, propane etc

They have done very well with the whitwashing of AGW, its a nicely painted
tax and spend scheme.

Yep, we are being taxed down under with the carbon tax. But guess what, the govt. has subsidised the average joe more than the tax. I follow it now, this rotten bloody tax really hurts

You mean to tell me that you can't understand that by placing a tax on say power companies and other big polluters will cause them to come up with smarter technology to prevent the pollution? Oh that's right, climate change isn't happening is it.
The 200 feet a year reduction on a glacier for the past three years in a study that is still ongoing isn't caused by climate change, another glacier retracting at 155 feet "A DAY" isn't caused by climate change, another 15 BILLION tonne (that's with a B) being flushed into the ocean each yeat at another site hasn't got anything to do with climate change, 80% of rain forests gone and replaced with farmland and roads and other human infrastructure isn't making any impact on climate (by the way, 25% of the earth"s oxygen production comes from rain forests),

But keep preaching that climate change isn't occurring, I'm sure there is an audience that will wave your flag. But I sure won't

reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe


You have missed the entire point of the thread....its about AGW, not climate change.
Sorry, we covered this already. Climate Change is a normal cyclical event of Earth.

Where we may differ is whether it is man made Climate Change, the majority of
scientists are either undecided, or they simply dont believe it is anthropogenic.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by mc_squared

 

Maybe if people like you spent less time insulting everyone who is skeptical or disagrees with the man made global warming theory you wouldn't be hated so much. Strong arming people into agreement is usually counter-productive in case you have'nt noticed by now.

Wow, A bloke sets out link after link, proof after proof, fact after fact and you bag him out and say he is strong arming. imo he/she has successfully put a counter argument to yours and the others of your ilk on here. In other words .............................. checkmate by mc_squared

reply to post by burntheships


I don't believe I have burn. Climate change and global warming are directly related imo. start with millions of years of CO2 being locked up as coal and oil (this also includes stuff spewing out of volcanoes) all to be released in a couple of hundred years starting at the industrial revolution (ie caused by humans). This brings about an increase in temp. Now we have polar melting. This affects the oceans conveyor belt. Now the global temp will fall. Hence, global warming and climate change and even a massive drop in temperatures can occur.

Hopefully someone else can come on here and tidy up my thoughts. And burn, if you or anyone else are going to bag out this post, please explain how or why the millions of years of locked up CO2 won't have a dramatic effect on global temps. Because that to me is the smoking gun that you and your buddies are ducking and weaving around.

reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe


Carbon Dioxide is necessary for the photosynthesis process of plants. The more CO2 the more plants prosper. Yes deforestation is becoming a big problem and the cause of that is over-population and their demands for comfortable living. Capitalism creates the greed factor of everyone wanting to live a materialistic life. We need to move beyond materialism and more into spiritualism. I believe in a mixed economy and birth control. The under-developed nations have been kept back intentionally it seems in terms of education and technology which leads them to reproduce like rabbits. When sex is the only "entertainment" then that is what folks do.

We need more forest land and less development of the wild. Leave some wild alone. We desperately need space travel and to colonise other planets. I keep asking myself why we are stuck on this rock 50 years after landing on the moon and I can't come up with any sane explanation. There must be interference somewhere!

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe

You mean to tell me that you can't understand that by placing a tax on say power companies and other big polluters will cause them to come up with smarter technology to prevent the pollution?

Big oil already have a monopoly on oil and gas, thus they will pass the tax burden to consumers and continue denying alternative energy is good enough to replace carbon fuel. Why the hell would they want to shoot themselves in the foot?

I am all for cutting down on unnecessary pollution. Most of the laws to do this already exist and it is simply a matter of the state enforcing them, but the policitians are in bed with the lobbiests since they need their campaign funds. The tax I am for 100% is VOTE TAX to replace all campaign contributions and a stock market transaction tax to cut down drastically on speculation.

But keep preaching that climate change isn't occurring, I'm sure there is an audience that will wave your flag. But I sure won't

I honestly think it is dishonest to claim that humans are mostly responsible for global warming. The earth has been known to warm up and cool down on its own in the past for various reasons. The sun could be getting hotter or there could be more volcanic activity for example. Just imagine a super volcano erupting like lake toba or yellowstone national park. There could be zero human activity and yet get loads and loads of CO2 pumped up instantenously.

reply to post by burntheships


The problem is that they KNOW their so called scientific evidence doesn't hold any water. It is just composed of illusions brought up by their emotions that "we are going to change the world for the better, and how WE see it fit" but they do not, and have not used any sort of rational, empirical evidence to substantiate their claims.

The whole Global Warming/Climate change movement was invented so that people will get used to the idea of believing we need a One World Government, derived from corporate mandates, and the reason they say this One World Government is needed is "to combat Climate Change"...

When in fact what these people want is more control over every part of people's lives, as well as on all resources, and they will drop their guilt line on you to try to get you to join them.

It is all smokes and mirrors, smokes and mirrors, and if you are not aware, and know the facts behind the real Climate Change you might fall for the lies of these people.

Not getting into a mud slinging contest here as most of you are pretty dirty already. Global warming has occurred for millions of years on this rock ... so has global cooling. The ground which my house stands on was once part of a great inland sea, and I would be sitting on the ocean floor right now if the climate had not changed and the sea dried up. Fast forward a few million years and my home and me would be squashed under millions of tons of ice as the glaciers scored the landscape clean with boulders like sand paper on wood. Does man have an affect on the climate? Of coarse we do. You can't buzz down trees like blades of grass on your lawn and not expect repercussions in some form. To what extent do our actions have on climate? Look to ancient civilizations of past that disappeared into obscurity due to the mismanagement of resources around them that caused changes like soil erosion and water depletion. I feel materialism is our downfall and this "I want" attitude our disease of choice. Live simpler lives. Reuse and recycle and don't follow this in crowd behavior that needs all the toys, gadgets and latest fashions. We are all responsible in some form for the way the world is today. Now what are YOU prepared to sacrifice today to achieve this. Here's a simple experiment to try. Flush the toilet every second time you piss and guess what? ... you just cut your water waste via the toilet by 40%.

wonder how much big oil paid him ?

all I know is my seasons are not the same anymore. i don't get a spring or a fall. I get winter, hell, then a superstorm and I lose my power

I would attribute that to more energy and moisture in the atmosphere

I really hope he is right, I hope everything is going to be ok

but this issue has big money on one side, and I just don't trust them

odd that around here the conspiracy is on the scientists side, not big oil

this place isn't that same either

reply to post by syrinx high priest

odd that around here the conspiracy is on the scientists side, not big oil

Isn't it?! The Fossil Fuel Industry is swimming in trillions of dollars, yet it's the people that make at the most 70-100k a year that are elitist scum trying to take over the world.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

odd that around here the conspiracy is on the scientists side, not big oil

Isn't it?! The Fossil Fuel Industry is swimming in trillions of dollars, yet it's the people that make at the most 70-100k a year that are elitist scum trying to take over the world.

Big oil is financing western governments and they would rather not have to pay taxes. If they do have to pay taxes they will pass them on to the consumer side not deduct them as expense. If there was an equal playing field in this sector then perhaps the oil industry would have initiative in developing alternative energy faster. Big oil is the one that is suppressing alternative energy and taxing them would help no one, just make things worse.

Many right wingers would disagree with me, but I for one would like oil/gas/nuclear energy to be nationalised completly. This is much better than some over-hyped taxation scheme.

Everyone has explained their reasoning to you and other democrats but clearly you don't want to admit you are wrong. That is fine. Everyone has their own agenda. Alex Jones has exposed the carbon tax as a tax on life and he is not exactly a huge fan of the republicans. He is right wing in a non-mainstream way, probably a libertarian. Libertarians and republicans are different parties and have their own candidates running during each election.

You seem like a mainstream democrat to me. Probably a neo-liberal as well. Not any better than a neo-conservative.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Actually I'm a Libertarian Socialist... and Alex Jones is a scamming moron. I don't support a carbon tax because I think it motivates people to deny science. Fail.

reply to post by steven2977


Hi steven,

It is all about the cash cow! Milk that cow!

Good points, and no one is worried about
all of the elderly in the U.K who are freezing to death!

Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset.www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Actually I'm a Libertarian Socialist... and Alex Jones is a scamming moron. I don't support a carbon tax because I think it motivates people to deny science. Fail.

And I am a conservative communist. See two can play the stupid game!

(there is no such thing as a libertarian socialist. A libertarian is for small government, low taxes, personal freedom. This is the antithesis of socialism which is for big government, higher taxes, state responsibility)

There is nothing inheritantly wrong with big or small government. It is the agenda behind people running the show.

Alex Jones is no scammer. The people who oppose him are the tyrants or the misinformed. Take a deeper look and see he hates both democrats and republicans.