News

How Science Blew the 'Climategate' Attack

Global warming is still fact, but a bumbling response helped deniers cloud the public's understanding.

By Colleen Kimmett, 14 Dec 2009, TheTyee.ca

PhilJones

Hacked and muffled: climate scientist Phil Jones

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

"Science by itself has no impact. It has to be translated into a compelling political story to make a difference," said Judith Layzer, a professor of environmental policy at MIT and a panelist at a recent forum titled "The Great Climategate Debate."

The proof is in what's happening in Copenhagen.

The story unfolding at the international climate change conference has indeed been a compelling story, and one that has taken on David and Goliath proportions. Tiny island nations -- those which have contributed the least to global warming yet face its most immediate consequences -- up against rich countries like Canada and the U.S., which have the power to significantly reduce global emissions but are the least concerned with doing so.

Environmentalists seized upon this narrative to bolster their messages and mobilize action. The conference so far has been a frenzy of flash-mobbing, marching moms and provocative messages, all of it culminating this weekend in a massive protest (100,000 people strong, by some estimates) in the heart of Copenhagen that ended with close to 1,000 arrests.

Yet, in this great public policy debate that is based on scientific understanding of the natural world, the scientists themselves have failed to take control of their own narrative. Climategate was an opportunity for scientists to clearly define their own role in the public sphere. Instead they let it get away from them.

The content of the hacked emails hasn't changed the prevailing scientific wisdom that human-caused carbon dioxide drives global warming. And most scientists and analysts agree it won't have much bearing on the outcome of the agreements. But the way in which this story played out -- fodder for deniers, a juicy scandal for the press --- has forced the scientific community to take a good hard look at what they, and the public, could learn from it.

'Maximally mishandled': Weaver

On Friday, Nov. 19, a story broke that hackers had stolen some 3,000 emails to and from Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and that they contained potentially damaging information.

RealClimate.org reported that, two days earlier, they notified the university when someone tried to upload the stolen emails on their website. Despite that, they were completely unprepared when the story blew up, wrote George Mobiot in the Guardian: "There was no statement, no position, no one to interview. Reporters kept being fobbed off while CRU's opponents landed blow upon blow on it."

By the time Jones stepped down on Dec. 2, it was too late for damage control.

"If you could actually maximally mishandle it, that's what happened here," says Andrew Weaver, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a professor at the University of Victoria.

"Instead of coming right out at the beginning with very strong statements about what was going on here, they sort of hung around for the weekend to see how they'd respond on Monday. Well, the story got away from them. The blogosphere went wild, and everyone’s looking at conspiracy."

"As if we are part of some socialist conspiracy trying to take over the world," he adds. "What we are trying to do is inform the world as to our understanding of the science."

Policy debates aren't linear equations

Many scientists don't understand that this is not the political reality, argues Layzer.

"Policy making is not a linear process in which policy makers identify a problem, line up the alternate solutions, choose the one that's best for society and then implements it," she said. "Instead, a better way to think about the policy process is as an ongoing battle among advocates competing to provide the authoritative definition of the problem -- and hence the most plausible solutions."

While environmental groups have been successful at framing climate change in a politically appealing way (with cute animals, or concerned parents) climate deniers focus on the inherent uncertainties in science. What you end up with, argues Layzer, is two groups making different arguments with the same body of information.

But scientists themselves are wary of crossing the line between researcher and advocate.

"In my view scientific societies and other scientific organizations should stick with the science," Neal Lane, a Rice University professor and former director of the National Science Foundation, told The Tyee in an email.

Lane, who was one of signatories on an open letter to Congress addressing the emails, asserted that aside from some inappropriate comments, "what the bulk of the communications seem to show is that scientists constantly debate each other's findings and interpretations. That is true in all areas of science."

The basic facts still hold

Andrew Glikson, an earth and paleoclimate scientist at Australian National University, said that the deniers' modus operandi of looking for gaps in any body of evidence is identical to the tactics used by creationists, or tobacco lobbyists.

"Scientists continuously assess and discuss the data and examine their significance," Glikson wrote in an email to The Tyee. "The outcome of this process are reports and publications. It is the validity of these reports. . . which is the subject of legitimate examination."

"I am unaware as to which statements made in any of the hacked emails imply as if global temperature has not risen by more than +0.8 degrees C since the 18th century, or the polar regions have not warmed up by up to +4 degrees C, the arctic sea ice is not melting, or Antarctic ice shelves are not collapsing, or sea level is not rising, or climate zones around the world are not migrating polar-ward."

Of course, not everyone in the scientific community thinks the emails are completely harmless, either.

Richard Lindzen is an MIT climatologist who has been public about his skepticism on the conventional scientific view of global warming. He also spoke at the panel discussion, where he said, "We are unambiguously dealing with things that are unethical and in many cases illegal." (For example, one in which Jones' appears to suggest that emails related to a freedom of information request be deleted.) Investigations are underway, a police investigation into the hacking incident, and a university inquiry into whether there was an unethical or illegal actions.

Lindzen also acknowledged that climate science is a complex issue, one that "the public, and not just the public but other scientists, want to grab onto a piece that they can understand." He said the emails could devastate popular support for science.

Myriad of 'information environments'

"Each of us lives in a different information environment. If your information environment is the New York Times, The New Yorker, NPR [National Public Radio], you may well think this is nothing. If your information environment is talk radio, there's been nothing but this on it for a long time, then it will be influential," he said.

"Very often there are distinct differences between the way ordinary people see things and the way the educated elite do. But ordinary people vote, and most of us are funded by their taxes."

Herein lies perhaps the most important lesson the scientific community might take away from this: the need for more interaction and communication between the "educated elite" and the ordinary masses. The language of the emails revealed one thing for certain -- that scientists are human, with the same foibles and frustrations as anyone else.

"Science, today, impacts people's lives to a degree we have not seen in past decades," said Lane. "The public needs to have a much better understanding of science, and only scientists can help make that happen." [Tyee]

Colleen Kimmett reports for The Tyee.

135 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    More Editorial Bias

    "Very often there are distinct differences between the way ordinary people see things and the way the educated elite do. But ordinary people vote, and most of us are funded by their taxes."

    Therefore we need to continue brainwashing the public in order to continue to benefit from their tax money is the the logical conclusion to that one.

    You are no doubt too young to remember the "sustainable" forestry BS that the timber industry, the governments of the day, the mass media and its paid propagandadists foisted on the BC public. One of its platforms was to convince the BC public that they need timber industry front groups like the BC Forest Alliance, (many former members of whom now form the BC Liberal government) to speak for them because as they just weren't capable of doing it themselves.

    The global warming/global govenment scam sees the same strategies extrapolated onto the world stage no matter how many people are duped enough to march to Copenhagen. One-hundred and sixty thousand military personnel alone attended the Nazi's Nuremberg rallies.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    The following link provides a good analysis of the CRU documents

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

  • Kevin

    2 years ago

    That's quite an accomplishment, Janie.

    Drawing inference between the protesters at Copenhagen and the Nuremberg rallies?

    You Godwined the thread with the very first comment - bravo!

  • AlbertKong

    2 years ago

    Two birds, one stone, stone allowed to slip out of fingers.

    I cannot fathom the simultaneous great alarm raised out of concern for climate change (if the phenomenon is real and anthropogenic) and denial of funding for research into Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, a technology which has the potential to completely solve the climate change problem (if it exists).

    Here is a comprehensive report on the phenomenon:

    http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BarnhartBtechnology.pdf

    The only way I can reconcile the two contentious positions is if in both cases the problem really is motivation to defend scientific turf and funding rather than to defend and uphold science itself.

    For the conspiracy theorists out there "great alarm for climate change" and "denial of funding to LENR research" would be opposite positions in the interests of "Big Oil".

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    The amazing part, and the

    The amazing part, and the best example of human gullibility over the ages, is that some of the Flat Earthers can still can get away with the climate change denial, with all the evidence in front of their noses.

    The more "wealth" we'll "create" into the pockets of the rulers of the world, the faster the climate change, because wealth can not be created, only taken from other sectors, the environment and the future.

    Ed Deak.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    The public isn't buying the fraud anymore

    And the global elite would still like a carbon trading system. This happened before China walked out.

    The business of climate change
    14 December, 2009 - 19:01

    The Business of Climate Change was up for debate at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen on Thursday with a question and answer discussion run by the Prince of Wales’ Corporate Leaders’ Group on Climate Change.

    The Group - which includes big polluters like Shell and Cemex - has launched its own, surprisingly tough call for a Copenhagen deal (the Copenhagen Communique) - which is supported by some 900 companies from around the world.

    Companies including BASF, Bayer, Dong Energy, EON, British Airways and BP have backed the call for “immediate and deep emission reduction commitments”, tougher regulation (“because a strong carbon price alone will not be enough to deliver the level and nature of change required”) and “efficient and equitable emissions reductions”.

    What is perhaps less surprising is that some of these very same companies are voicing far less constructive demands elsewhere.

    Take for example Angry Mermaid nominee Shell - this oil and gas company which recently pulled out of renewables and is poised to develop tar sands projects in Canada, also belongs to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,which
    is promoting voluntary solutions, not legally binding regulations."
    http://www.corporateeurope.org/climate-and-energy/blog/helen/2009/12/14/business-climate-change
    In other words you will be held to a standard they will not.

    But a new commodities market based on a scientific fraud is being established and they are all in on the ground floor.

    It is your breath they want to trade.

    We have been given time to smash this outrageous eugenics machine. This is NOT a left/right issue.
    This is a human rights issue.

    People are not as dumb as the elite think we are.

    Canada-Wide Public Opinion Poll on Climate Change:
    Public Wants Copenhagen Treaty Delayed to Allow Recovery from Recession and Stronger Scientific Confirmation

    http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/Postpone Copenhagen Treaty.pdf

  • salty dog

    2 years ago

    I`m too cold to argue....

    Record cold in Tumbler ridge and in Edmonton....

    And China doesn`t give a fock about climate change or warming, one trillion dollars in US currency,China`s plan on tripling their emissions by 2020....Yet they are slowing down previous projected increases...

    And as for the developed nations handing money over to the developing nations, hate to break it to you Colleen K and co......

    Developed nations are broke,developing nations can max out their own credit cards...ours are headed to the shredder

    Cheers-Eyes Wide Open

  • salty dog

    2 years ago

    And while I think about it...

    There is only one thing to do....Limit breeding to one child, a one child policy will bring the world population down from 7 billion today to 3.5 billion by 2075....

    That`s your answer.....

    But no, lets play the offset game,carbon trading,carbon taxes.....Yet all you green beans won`t allow adopting nuclear...Clean,green,renewable...We can send the waste to the moon if your worried,or fly it into the sun.....

    And lastly...What are we going to do about global cooling?

    Cheers

  • soleprobe

    2 years ago

    This is getting embarrassing

    Seems that with Tyee the only politically nonbiased reporting can be found in the comment section under the “ALL” tab.

    Oh well. The "ALL" tab is all that’s allocated to the “deniers” and still these AGWarmers are gettin their butts kicked. It just goes to show the power of truth. Maybe it's because "truth" is not inert but a real living force.

  • Wilfride Laurier

    2 years ago

    Deniers

    There are plenty of climate change deniers out there from all parts of the political spectrum. Seems to me they all share the same fear of having to change their lifestyle. Change isn't always a bad thing. In my experience, the opposite is the case.

  • Tangler

    2 years ago

    End Justifies the Means?

    Yes, this incident was poorly handled from a public relations management perspective. But, it's a fact that most universities and other research institutions don't really spend much money on public relations management - only a fraction of what would typically be spent by private sector corporations and corporate lobby groups.

    Naive, perhaps. But how would the taxpaying/donating public react if they learned that a particular institute spent tens of millions on "PR" and "communications"? There would be an uproar, with much tongue-clucking and nose-sniffing.

    It wasn't long ago that corporate executives paid only lip service to public relations and few (if any) were trained in the art of "communication". Today, you'd be hard-pressed to find a CEO or CFO who isn't a highly-educated and skilled corporate communicator. In the academic and scientific community ... not so much.

    But that's where the media has an important responsibility. Too often, editors and reporters accept what they are given by professional PR people and don't work hard enough to extract relevant information from unskilled academics. It's the "era of the media release", and it's shameful.

    Where is the media in widely and loudly condemning the illegal actions of the hackers? Has the media succumbed to the common, right-wing belief that the end always justifies the means? At what point (if any) will the media refuse to play the role of "fence" for thieves like the hackers who stole email and data?

    Let's abandon basic civil liberties ... because it will keep us safe from terrorists. Let's set aside fundamental legal principles ... because we can't play nice with evil doers. And let's use stolen goods ... because it's okay to steal things under "certain circumstances".

    Get real.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    The real amazing part, Ed

    is that people don't seem to realize that the alarmists are equally as misinformed as the deniers. They too grasp at straws make mountains out of mole hills and create just as much of a threat to society as they say of the deniers.

    Their knee jerk reactions to the responses to those deniers that claim climategate proves AGW is a hoax are laughable.

    There are probably far more "deniers" that don't believe it is a hoax but do question the science and they have just had those beliefs validated by the shenanigans at the CRU.

    My favourite is the excuse being put forward that climate scientists are 'only human' which coincidently is also a phrase occasionally being used to rationalize Tiger Woods' behaviour.

    I wonder if that could have been used to explain away OJ Simpson's actions or [just to keep Kevin happy] those of Adolph Hitler.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    Speaking of hoaxes.

    http://www.canada.com/technology/Fake+news+release+links+Canada+major+emission+reduction+targets/2338477/story.html

  • MichaelC

    2 years ago

    re: Snert

    2nd Godwin Law invocation in less than 2 hours. You do yourself a disservice.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    MichaelC

    It's in reference to the first invocation so it doesn't count. :>} A little bit of frivolous hyperbole but oddly enough it still as a slight ring of truth.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    Credible Science

    It is nice of Colleen Kimmett to tell us that the science of Global Warming is still on track.

    Climategate would be a lot easier to sweep under the rug if the world was still warming. With the world now 11 years into a cooling phase it will be a lot harder to do.

    So far we have NASA getting caught with data manipulation.

    Mike Mann from Penn State, has been caught cooking the hockey stick chart (may he be sent to the State Pen).

    Phil Jones has his hands full with stacking the peer review process, manipulating and deleting data. Thwarting the freedom of information requests.

    We have attempts to hide the decline in global temperatures, Attempts to eliminate the natural warming events such as the medevial warming period, and the warming of the 1930's.

    We have many false reports of sea level rise.

    Also false reports of the oceans turning acidic.

    The mechanisms of how CO2 might possibly cause warming remain hidden. The physics of CO2 do not support global warming theory. The supposed synergistic feedback effects remain hidden from view.

    Climategate is starting to hit the mainstream media.

    Colleen's credibility is starting to look incredible.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Spinmeisters at it again

    It was a leak that caused Climategate, but more to the point, the carrying on about the illegal nature of the supposed hacking is rather like complaining about someone who forced his way into a locked room to prevent a rape.

    "Deniers" are not misinformed. They want science to be done out in the open and peer-reviewed without insider connivance bending the process to accommodate a business/government alliance to defraud.

    Is that too much to ask before we are forced to pay trillions to banks and brokerage houses, all arranged by a bunch of eugenicists?

    Look what Tony Blair admits:
    "The world must take action on climate change at Copenhagen even if the science is not correct, Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister has suggested."
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html

    I can't think of another reason for those who support the climate scam to continue supporting it, except perhaps an unacknowledged bias toward eugenicist thought.

    From http://whatreallyhappened.com/

    "Talk to an environmentalist long enough, and eventually they will reveal their contempt for humans. The proof is in this exclusive clip from the forthcoming movie "Not Evil Just Wrong."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe4A-TvtR4g&feature=player_embedded

  • biscotti

    2 years ago

    Record cold?

    "salty dog" mentions "Record cold in Tumbler ridge and in Edmonton". Yes, it's cold here in the north Interior (a balmy -32 this morning where I live - not as chilly as TR), but that's not a record. Definitely not as cold as it was when I moved north from the coast 15 yrs ago.

    The dead pine trees that I see out my window are evidence of the warming trend. Hasn't been cold enough, early enough in the winter, or long enough to kill them for many years. Pretty obvious to everyone living in the interior.

  • salty dog

    2 years ago

    The bigger picture......

    What Colleen K doesn`t seem to understand, what politicians don`t seem to understand,what the media doesn`t understand is...

    Whether climate change is real, made up, bogus, isn`t the issue...

    I haven`t heard or talked to any "real" person that believes in Carbon offsets,carbon trading,carbon credits,carbon taxes....The carbon offset trading market thus far has been a dismal failure,emissions have risen....

    Yet having said that, I don`t know of any real person who doesn`t advocate...

    Making polluters upgrade to cleaner technology,scrubbers,alternate fuel sources,if companies can pollute less then mandate reductions....

    But creating carbon credits by giving Chief Atleo millions to "not log a forest" or fill huge bays full of fertilizer to create algae blooms to absorb carbon...or spray particles into the atmosphere to block the sun...

    Port alberni once stunk badly from the pulp mill smoke stacks,technology has cleaned it up.

    So Colleen K...If you wonder why people are upset over Copenhagen and climategate...The answer is simple...

    "People know a Nigerian lottery fraud when they see one"

    Could you please print your adress Colleen K...I have a letter to send you!

    Cheers

  • onthebay

    2 years ago

    Glaciers too

    The warming trend is also obvious to those who have watched the glaciers on their local mountains melt down to barely a fraction of their once glorious size.

  • BC Mary

    2 years ago

    "Not as chilly as TR ..."

    .

    I give up. Where is TR?

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Al Gore 1984

    Thanks Kevin, thought I'd get it out of the way right off the bat.

    As Al Gore himself reminds us:

    "As George Orwell reminds us, sooner or later a false belief bumps up against a solid reality . . ."

    Al Gore 1984
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3XcIh_n6k0&feature=related

    The false belief: AGM
    The solid reality: The earth has not warmed for a decade.

  • Urbanismo

    2 years ago

    Salty dog. Making polluters upgrade . . .

    Well, of course. How come it took so log . . .

    Earth's climate changes: temperature up, temperature down. Its been going on since its molten surface retreated to its core: where it is today.

    All the rest is political suckering: Corporate shit! Less freedom, more taxes.

    Sound paranoid? Yup! Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't after your butt!

    Earth is in crisis: Tyee's bullshit "expert", "academic" trope exacerbates the problem.

    Time to rein in hysteria.

    Let's do something useful: tackle toxicity: toxic people, toxic politics, toxic bureaucrats, toxic air, toxic water, toxic ideas, toxic ugliness, toxic noise: TOXIC.

    IMEC today: http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/simat2/

    Whooo-ah máximo hoy 101. Not good.

    Sane people first: resources will look after themselves when we rein in the psychotics . . .

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Denial?

    Colleen:

    "The content of the hacked emails hasn't changed the prevailing scientific wisdom that human-caused carbon dioxide drives global warming. ..."

    Doesn't matter if they are left or right thinking Colleen, people are just no longer buying it.

    The only hope now is that real science and, importantly, popular science will not suffer because of the scaremongering quasi-scientist sociologists who decided that massaging data was acceptable.

  • Jay Currie

    2 years ago

    Yeah, right

    "it's a fact that most universities and other research institutions don't really spend much money on public relations management - only a fraction of what would typically be spent by private sector corporations and corporate lobby groups."

    Realclimate.com is owned and run by a PR firm.

    CRU and others have been looking for (and finding) corporate funding for years.

    Meanwhile, why all the secrecy on the warmist's part? Why not release the data with the publications? Why not fully and fairly answer FOI requests? Why try to shut down disagreement?

    What the CRU mails (and more importantly, the kludged code) indicate is that the "Team" climate scientists were uncertain of their own results and terrified of the possibility that those results would be held to scrutiny.

    It was quite right for Jones to step aside (not "down" as was reported). His watch, his responsibility. But it is also critical that the other scientists be investigated for potentially violating FOI legislation in the UK and in the States. As well, long before any policy - one way or another - is initiated, the crappy code, the missing data and the "adjustments" need to be investigated, audited as it were, by people who are not dependent on Team administered grants for their funding.

  • willy

    2 years ago

    I wish people would

    I wish people would understand something on this site, cold and wet is weather, hot and dry is climate, get it.

    "Scientists continuously assess and discuss the data and examine their significance," Glikson wrote in an email to The Tyee. "The outcome of this process are reports and publications. It is the validity of these reports. . . which is the subject of legitimate examination."

    Did Glikson read the emails? Did he read how the peer review was corrupted. I have always found peer review is not quite what it is crached up to be.

    The real most honest peer review is the internet and the likes of Gore are finding that out the hard way, eh Suzuki.

    Oh evidence is showing that the emails where not hacked but released by a whistleblower tired of the corrupted science.

    Tyee biased naw, that can't be, I am crushed. The only other time I felt this bad is when I decovered no Santa Claus.

  • make_up_another...

    2 years ago

    China's Tenuous Hold

    China's position on climate change is understandable given that the party leadership's tenuous hold on power and control rests on the illusion of its recent prosperity. Not that the peasants are doing well but the newly formed middle class, if kept distracted by new found wealth, are willing accomplices in prolonging communist rule.

    After Tiananman Square, the leadership fooled everyone into thinking that opening the economy would equal freedom, but in China there is no political freedom and free markets don't make democracy.

  • max von smartt

    2 years ago

    true believers, religion and selective science

    Take a look at the following selection of 100 articles sceptical of anthropogenic global warming blaming CO2:

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=24

    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=24

  • SharingIsGood

    2 years ago

    Definition for willy

    I see that you have some difficulty in understanding what climate means.

    From dictionary.com:

    Climate:

    "1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years."

    So you see willy, climate can be cool and moist or hot and dry. Climate can even be both in the same region, but at different times of the the year. The key is that these are prevailing conditions averaged over years for a specific region. I hope this helps you in your struggle to get over believing whatever some denialist-whacko has fed you and caused you to believe with regard to global warming.

    Please visit the sites that I have posted on the other thread and begin reading from those sites before you start shooting off your "mouth" half cocked. Also read the article published here. Your arguments about climate are extremely weak (just plain silly really) without verifiable facts and research to back them up. The vast bulk of science and research weighs incredibly heavily against the denialists. Just the high amount of melting of the ice caps and the glaciers that has been occurring should be enough to make you sit up and take notice.

    Peace be with you,
    SIG

  • ragingran

    2 years ago

    Let's get real

    Wow! a badly slanted article indeed.

    First of all, there has never been any announcement that the CRU "emails' were in fact hacked. In fact, one computer programmer believes this was an inside job, ie, a whistle blower, as Currie points out above. Furthermore, it wasn't just the emails (bad though they were) that were exposed. More significant really were the many other documents including some of the actual computer codes for the climate modeling program the CRU group was (and still is) using. Within these codes, you can see the remarks from the programmers stating that the data they are inputing will skew the model.

    Second, the use of the term "denier" (as in holocaust denier) is a dead give-away to your bias. "Skeptic" is the accepted and civil non-pejorative adjective used when discussing scientists who do not agree that man-made CO2 is changing our climate to any significant degree (or at all).

    I assumed, like many commenting here, that global warming (or climate change, the new name) was a given, just like Al Gore and David Susuki and George Monbiot and Greenpeace and so many others claimed. That was until I started researching the issue on my own. I was astounded by what I found.

    As Currie and Willie and others point out here, there has been an ongoing and thorough study of the science that lies at the base of the man-made CO2 global warming theory.

    I sincerely hope that the "believers" (especially the author of this article) can bring themselves to suspend disbelief long enough to watch this 2007 documentary produced by a group of journalists at a UK TV station. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

    Go ahead, make some popcorn and settle in to listen to these many eminent scientists discuss their knowledge and the reasons they do not believe we are all gonna die from global warming.

  • biscotti

    2 years ago

    TR = Tumbler Ridge

    BC Mary: Sorry for the acronymn. My post was in response to salty dog's reference to current cold temperatures in Tumbler Ridge and Edmonton, which seemed to imply that we are somehow experiencing global cooling, not warming ;-)

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    Too bad Massimo Tartaglia hit the wrong guy with the statue...

    It would have made more sense to give that award to Stephen Harper and John Baird. If I were Massimo Tartaglia's lawyer, I would claim it was an attempt to reward Mr. Berlusconi for his conquests in the bedroom. Likewise, some members of our own government deserve a big, fat lip for their environmental belligerence in our name.

    Canada was hailed as a leader at Kyoto, by signing up for CO2 reductions. I knew then that there would be no action whatsoever, regardless of who was in power in Ottawa. Today Canada's reputation is firmly in the toilet. It sickens me to be right.

    The article is correct; politicians don't react to reasoned arguments by weighing the options; they just do whatever they were programmed with at birth, which is to milk the system for all it is worth. These guys need a rocket under their butts to get their attention.

    Considering human history, it is quite possible that the next war will be a a series of civil wars, fought in many countries, between those who want to save the planet vs. those who are trashing it. Those who deny global warming will never change their minds because their brains are in their wallets, and nowhere else.

    Those who recognise the problem may well have to do a lot more than march. I have a nasty feeling we may have to go a lot further than that. Giving awards by hurling them may be the least of it. We need to send Mr. Harper a message he won't forget.

  • SharingIsGood

    2 years ago

    New word for the day

    "denihilator"

    One who is willing to annihilate the bulk of humanity and many other species on Earth by denying that current global warming is human in origin especially through increased green house gas emissions, most particularly, CO2.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    Fish-Counter

    You clearly care about our environment.
    That is good
    You have stated that the oceans have increased their acidity by 30 percent in the last few years.

    You live in Nanaimo. Would you please stick a piece of litmus paper into the ocean to confirm that global warming has increased the acidity of the oceans and report back to thetyee with your findings. Better yet could you borrow a inexpensive hach kit from VIU to get a more accurate measure of the death of our planet and then report the results back to thetyee.

    Thanks in advance for your help.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    SIG

    Do you still believe in the Piltdown Man?

    Don't you want to share your world with the growing developing countries? That would be selfish.

  • BrianWhite

    2 years ago

    Turning ice into water takes a lot of energy.

    333.55 (J/g) is the latent Heat of fusion
    It takes 333.55 joules to turn one gram of ice at zero into water at zero centigrade.
    It only takes 4.2 joules to heat the water from zero to 1 If you had a gram of water at zero and applied 333.55 jules of heat to it, it would go to 79 C
    Or put it this way, it takes the same amount of energy to turn a gram of ice into water as it does to make the water hot enough to cook pork!
    So there is a whole lot of HIDDEN warming going on.
    All those glaciers melting (anyone argueing that?) and less and less sea ice in the artic, (Seems some of you forget this in an instant) All those bugs moving north, is showing that warming is happening. But all that melting is hiding how really FAST it is happening.

  • willy

    2 years ago

    Cold is weather, hot is Climate

    sharing is good it is you that needs to do some research, I can tell that from your response. The emails and code say what they say.

    Real scientists in any field of science should be concerned on how climatic science has been found to be corrupted as people will start to be critical of any science or scientst.

    Some good reads at these sites, climateaudit.org, wattsupwiththat.com, icecap.us

    I have been to sites supporting man caused globull warming and that is how I went from warmer to skeptic. I have not lost may ability to question. Teachers just hated me in school.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    SIG, Warmers have already killed people by starvation

    So quit your self-righteous nonsense.

    The Western Appetite for Biofuels is Causing Starvation in the Poor World

    An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity - Biofuels could kill more people than the Iraq war.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels

    "Governmental policies within the U.S. and E.U. have caused an increased demand on beans and grains to be used for bio-fuel, a supplement of petroleum. The programs designed to fulfill specific quotas are operating with an inefficiency not seen since the peak of the Soviet Union. Farmers, corporations and scientists are milking the government for extremely high and wasteful subsidies, robbing taxpayers and wasting enough grain to make Stalin proud, resulting in the worldwide cost of farmed goods to sky rocket."

    http://www.mideastyouth.com/2008/04/21/bio-fuel-causes-egyptian-starvation/

    Brian, you are right.

    Far more energy is needed to melt the Arctic than the atmosphere overhead can deliver.

    That is why it is time to look at all those volcanoes lining the tectonic plate edges HIDDEN
    UNDER the seas.

    It's not Global Warming,
    it's Ocean Warming
    Major undersea eruptions
    4 Nov 09 – Here are links to a couple of cool videos showing huge
    amounts of ash, rocks and steam emanating from underwater volcanoes.
    See Major undersea eruptions

    Scientists stumble across huge underwater mountain
    29 May 09 - Marine scientists have discovered a massive
    underwater volcano off Indonesia’s western coast. The 4,600m
    (15,000ft) mountain spans 30 miles at its base, with its summit
    some 1,300 meters below the surface. Its discovery was
    "completely unexpected."
    See Scientists stumble across huge underwater mountain

    Galapagos volcano erupts -
    lava flowing into the ocean
    12 Apr 09 - Again, we have 2,150-
    degree lava pouring into the ocean –
    ten times the boiling point - and we
    keep blaming humans for heating the
    seas.
    Galapagos volcano erupts, lava
    flowing into the ocean

    more here:
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Brian White

    The Malenkovitch Cycle PREDICTS the melting of Polar Ice.

  • salty dog

    2 years ago

    Sig....

    The question I would like you to answer SIG is this.

    1)Why did we have ice ages in the past?

    2)What caused the ice to retreat in the past.

    3)What caused a warm,balmy tropical arctic in the past.

    4)What caused the medevil warming(hotter than today)

    Sig...Until you religious types can answers those questions...Well,you know!

    Cheers

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    Thanks for the suggestion, Illahie

    As it happens, I have a Hach spectrophotometer in my garage. It wouldn't be statistically representative to take one sample from the Strait of Georgia and use that as ameasure of the pH status of the world's oceans.

    The thousands of measurements that have been taken are quite accurate, I'm sure. The ocean pH has fallen from 8.25 to 8.01 in the last 20 years. That is an increase in acidity of 30%. Like the melting of the glaciers, it is a massive signal that the environment is changing. Not everyone will agree, but they don't have any alternative data to work with, do they? All they have is misguided skepticism. The more I think about the idiotic resistance to the obvious, the more I think an Irish shillelagh is needed to break heads, not change minds.

  • Yammer

    2 years ago

    A non-statement about a non-statement

    Andrew Weaver:

    "Instead of coming right out at the beginning with very strong statements about what was going on here, they sort of hung around for the weekend to see how they'd respond on Monday."

    Well, what WAS going on there?

    Apart from the obvious, which is that the data was deliberately skewed in order to disguise a cooling trend?

    Frankly, Weaver, there isn't actually that much to say, is there? It is what it is. The only possible statement is to explain how you had the best of intentions. And we already knew that, I guess.

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    Why does the Arctic, the

    Why does the Arctic, the Antarctica, the world's glaciers etc melt and why didn't we have -40C for long enough time to kill the tree bugs here in the interior since 1995, if we have a cooling trend.

    Right now at 8 pm we have -30 outside, is this the sign cooling trend ?

    But then we're forecast +5 for Friday, with 40% chance for showers and some of the world's large rivers are drying up with the melting of the glaciers. Must be because of the "cooling trend"

    Ed Deak. Big Lake.

  • SharingIsGood

    2 years ago

    mopled

    Being a person who understands how human caused greenhouse gas increases work to trap heat on the planet and accepting that does not preclude me from believing that biofuels are not the answer. I don't believe in using biofuels. That foolishness costs me too. As a matter of fact, I just paid $10.78 for a sack of rice that would have cost me about 4 bucks just a couple of years ago.

    I understand that biofuels create more greenhouse gases in their growing collection and manufacturing than does plain old petroleum.

    If we are going to use the oil in the oilsands, I would like to see nuclear furnaces used to melt the oil out of the sands. I would like to see them be more responsible in their extraction of the oil and I would like the environmental degradation to be less. I am not big on nuclear power, in heavily populated areas, but northern Alberta is sparsely populated enough that many small nuclear water heaters would be far better than wasting oil to melt it out.

    I would have liked to have seen our federal government work to develop truly green industries and real public transportation with the stimulous money rather than the way they have thrown it at many status quo businesses and technologies. We should have a coast to coast bullet train in the works so that we could ground most of the air travel.

    I would love to see energy production/conservation being brought down to the individual level as much as possible and I would like to see government incentives introduced to help people do it.

    I don't like the large global model for corporations. I don't believe in cap and trade. I would like to see rich countries in the world work to help the common person in Africa, Aisa, Central America or "wherever" get what he or she needs to have a reasonbly happy and healthy life. I don't believe in dictatorships, nor do I believe in selfishness. I do believe in incentives, but I don't believe that people should ever think they deserve to earn more than five times the median wage for people in their country - nor 10 times if there earnings come from investments. The extraneous money should be divided among the workers who work under those captains of industry; after that it should be going to health care etc. I am for workers, not elites.

  • SharingIsGood

    2 years ago

    salty dog

    The science is in, yes there has been global warming in the past, but the current warming is happening at breakneck spead compared to the past. We have to get our heads around this fact and the other huge issues associated with overpopulation or billions of humans will die from flooding, starvation and the ensuing wars over land, water, food and other resources. I wish this weren't so: I am not a fear mongerer, but I am a realist. The planet is heating up so fast that we are going to (almost literally) pay hell just trying to keep up with the changes. Past extreme warmings and coolings were accompanied by large die-offs of plant and animal life; we have not the resources to adapt to the changes quickly enough if we continue on our current CO2 belching path.

    It is time for humans to grow up and quit being so stupid with the many resources we have on the planet. We need to quit allowing 1% of the population to earn 50% of the income. Nobody works hard enough to deserve to earn even 10 times what the average worker does, let alone 40, 50 or more times that amount. It is time for the selfish amoung us to quit being rewarded. Capitalism is not working in its present form. It is destroying the planet faster than it can heal.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    All I see from Warmists is a refusal to face the fact

    that humans can't change climate. I think it is reluctance to acknowledge you have been taken in by a fraud.

    There is no reason to restrict CO2. At 390 PARTS PER MILLION there is too little of it to make much difference....AND THE HUMAN CONTRIBUTION OF THAT ALREADY MINISCULE AMOUNT IS ONLY 12-15 PPM.

    "This discussion illustrates how the connection between global warming and the tiny mass of
    CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been exaggerated. The physical properties of any
    substance or object that involve the capture, storage, transport and transfer of (heat) energy
    are mass dependent and the notion that 25% of the CO2 in our atmosphere can cause the melting of glaciers and the warming of oceans implies that an infinite amount of energy can be stuffed into a finite mass. The challenge, expressed here, requires the proponents of CO2 induced global warming to reconcile their models with classical scientific principles and established physical data. Any response must define,explain,illustrate, and, most importantly, quantify the physical properties of CO2 that conclusively establish this
    miniscule component of our atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, capable of heating the
    relatively huge mass of the Earth's land and water features to catastrophic proportions"
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CHALLENGE_7b_1.cwk_(WP)(2).pdf

    Now get over your embarrassment and start acting to stop this fraud instead of prolonging the agony.

    If you are "for workers" why support an elitist scam which harms them and does nothing to curb real pollution.?

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    mopled

    What agony? Copenhagen isn't going to happen, the promises of Kyoto never happened.

    Therefore, since the "warmist" agenda has never been put into practice let me ask you and all the other skeptics why you guys haven't cleaned up the environment with all the money you've saved?

  • Fish-counter

    2 years ago

    I hope Mopled doesn't like seafood

    Because there won't be any by 2050. I suppose he would deny that people can affect fish stocks too. Lowering the pH of the oceans is the best way to cut fish stocks. CO2 is doing just that as we speak.

    There is, as Frank says, no chance whatsoever that we will turn the tide on fossil fuels. The best we can hope for is to make whatever individual changes we can and take comfort in the fact that in Canada, the federal government has relatively little control over environmental issues.

    Cities control transit and urban design and the provinces control roads and infrastructure. There is lots of wiggle room for the provinces to try different options. BC's carbon tax stands alone. Agree or disagree with it, but it is a start; something worth trying. If only 10% of the cars on the road were electric, it would signal a major shift in values. For one thing, those cars would be driven slower to conserve fuel. People might plan their trips more carefully. The Big Three auto manufacturers might realise that we don't really need huge Hummers for weekend shopping.

    I just wish the deniers of AGW would stop trying to remember their Grade 10 science because they only embarrass themselves.

  • willy

    2 years ago

    copenhagen bust

    If the London Times is correct about the conference going bust, the biggest losers in Copenhagen will be the various and sundry contingents of "undeveloped" countries who have spent the last week asserting their entitlement to ever-increasing "reparations" from wealthy nations.

    Leaders of fifty African nations came to Copenhagen asking $400 billion for the next three years to "offset" carbon credit "damages" which they claim to suffer. Inexplicably, two days ago, that demand was increased to an eye-goggling 5% of GDP (gross domestic product), estimated at $722 billion from the United States alone. There never was a response from the industrialized world.

    Some global "warners" paraded in their skivvies in the brisk Denmark breezes, ostensibly to show us how warm it is at the Arctic Circle in December. The protestors who were arrested were allegedly throwing bricks and breaking windows while chanting about "saving the world." The group is threatening to "take over" the summit this week unless their demands for something or other are met. They might want to conference with the Africans.

    The shameful thing about the London Times story is that if it is true, the liberal American news media have either missed or studiously ignored the story of the century: "global warming fraud" and the aborted attempt to craft a worldwide, economy-busting treaty based on fake science.

    And if the London Times' sources are right, one wonders how those "fasters" will feel about going without food for a month for...nothing. Cheeseburger, shake, and fries to go?

    December 14, 2009

    DOE Litigation Hold Notice

    DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science

    Wow. This means that either litigation has begun or is believed to be imminent. I hope something similar is also going out to other departments, particularly those involved in the CCSP and other documents used by the EPA.

    Looks like major criminal problems for the people that have been deleting.

    someone has been Mannipulating data

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    The ocean has real things wrong with it like sewage,

    ocean dumping and overfishing. The pH thingy is just like the climate thingy...nonsense.

    "How acidic are the oceans?
    As this map suggests, ocean pH measurements have been done all over the world and in the most unlikely places. The false colour scale on the right suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2 (personally I have measured a wider range from 7.8 to 8.3). The lowest pH occurs in upwelling areas whereas highest pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres. From this extensive mix it would be difficult to state what the 'average' pH is for the oceans, let alone whether the oceans have become more or less acidic. Note that upwelling areas are more acidic because high-CO2 bottom water surfaces, warms up and makes CO2 more readily available, a bonus for photosynthesis by marine plankton.
    "Are oceans becoming more acidic?
    Measurements done during two NOAA voyages in the Pacific, about a decade apart, are the cause of the whole ruckus about ocean acidification. From these two voyages (one experiment) it is claimed that the average alkalinity of the ocean decreased by just 0.025 pH units amounting to an increase in DIC (CO2) of 15µmol/kg (0.73% of a total of 2050µmol/kg). I have not been able to ascertain whether adequate precautions have been followed, because measuring an absolute difference of 0.1pH borders on the margins of the possible, let alone 0.01. In the decade between the two voyages, also the pH measuring apparatus has changed, and so on. But a pH unit of 0.025 on a rather exponential (logarithmic scale) amounts to antilog(-0.025)=0.944 or 5.6% more hydrogen ions. Note that this is the only accurately measured value."

    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_acidic

  • Harold Steves

    2 years ago

    Get Used to it

    The debate over whether climate change is natural or man-made is irrelevant. Climate change is happening. Get used to it.

    The economist Robert Malthus was ridiculed 150 years ago when he predicted that population growth and continuous economic development would eventually lead to environmental breakdown and mass starvation.

    Fifty years ago we were warned again by scientists Rachel Carson (Silent Spring), Barbara Ward and Rene Dubois (Only One Earth), and Paul Erlich (The Population Bomb).

    Thirty-five years ago BC responded by enacting the Agricultural Land Reserve, to protect farmland and the ability to feed ourselves. I presented the idea to the UN at the Habitat conference in 1976.

    Paul Erlich predicted that mankind would either take the necessary action to preserve his species, or so erode, overtax, and exploit his habitat, that he will destroy himself.

    Since then the international corporations that exploit our oil, gas, and coal, and the chemicals and products produced from them, have become so addicted to the profits of resource exploitation that they are incapable of change. Like the tobacco companies before them, who responded with "light" or "cool" tobacco, when confronted with evidence of carcinogens in tobacco, they will water down any initiatives to curb their excesses.

    The fact that we are still debating, while there are so many obvious changes all around us, indicates that we are taking the latter path to our own destruction that Erlich predicted. We must increase demands on our governments for reform. However, it is time to start planning for survival in a changing world if we don't succeed.

  • bakoonin_mik

    2 years ago

    Harold Steves

    While I promised myself not to engage climate change deniers on this site anymore, I am always pleased to see a voice of reason and intelligence shine through.

    Your general point that progressive scientists with vision have routinely been ridiculed though history by charlatans and the like - not lost on me. In addition to the examples you cite, another important figure comes to mind: M. King Hubbert, whose peak oil models were laughed at in 1956, but they aren't being laughed at anymore. Much of what his models predicted have already been realized.

    You're quite right, if the science on climate change weren't clear enough, we'd only have to defer to our own common sense: is it not painfully obvious that things are changing? Of course it is obvious. But deniers and charlatans, like those grinding their axes here, have never been known for their abilities to detect the obvious; rather they are more known for their abilities to obfuscate.

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    Interesting article on how

    Interesting article on how the corporate mafia is using climate change for its own profit making and global ruling interests.

    Ed Deak.

    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

    TUESDAY, MAY 1, 2007

    The Corporate Climate Coup

    David F. Noble

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Dr. Phil Jones need not apply for this job

    "The Times
    December 5, 2009
    Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data

    The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

    The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012. ..."

    Dr. Jones must be looking for a good lawyer.

    As Willy pointed out above, it looks as though the truth may well be sought through the courts.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends-a-litigation-hold-notice-regarding-cru-to-employees-asking-to-preserve-documents/

    This will send a chill down a few spines.

    If Phil is tried and found guilty I suggest burning at the stake. After all, one of his nightmares will come true. You know, Phil, if we all going to burn in hell then do the right thing, old chap. You go first, what?

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Bakoonin

    Tons of oil out there Michael. Maybe even too much for oil sands viability.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8409473.stm

    http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/russias-lukoil-banksoil-revolutioniraq_430781.html

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Excellent article Ed Deak

    For those of you who don't believe that the AGM crowd aren't up to their necks in dirty oil money:

    " . . . the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. funded by the philanthropic offering of the Sun Oil/Sunoco fortune. The board of the new Center was chaired by Theodore Roosevelt IV, great grandson of the Progressive Era president (and conservation icon) and managing director of the Lehman Brothers investment banking firm. Joining him on the board were the managing director of the Castle-Harlan investment firm and the former CEO of Northeast Utilities, as well as veteran corporate lawyer Frank E. Loy, who had been the Clinton administration's chief negotiator on trade and climate change."

    At its inception the Pew Center established the Business Environmental Leadership Council, chaired by Loy. Early council members included Sunoco, Dupont, Duke Energy, BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, Duke Energy, Ontario Power Generation, DTE (Detroit Edison), and Alcan."
    ()
    "Early in 2000, “world business leaders" convening at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland declared that “climate change is the greatest threat facing the world.” That fall, many of the same players, including Dupont, BP, Shell, Suncor, Alcan, and Ontario Power Generation, as well as the French aluminum manufacturer Pechiney, joined forces with the U.S. advocacy group Environmental Defense to form the Partnership for Climate Action. Like-minded Environmental Defense directors included the Pew Center's Frank Loy and principals from the Carlyle Group, Berkshire Partners, and Morgan Stanley and the CEO of Carbon Investments."

    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

    Of course the Hoggans, Bermans, Suzukis et al will say that it's okay because "the end justifies the means." Not.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Science Communication

    I would have to disagree somewhat with this statement from Neal Lane,

    "Science, today, impacts people's lives to a degree we have not seen in past decades," said Lane. "The public needs to have a much better understanding of science, and only scientists can help make that happen."

    It is an evasion of responsibility to say that only scientists can make it happen. The mass media needs to participate more in informing citizens of scientific issues, and unfortunately, they often do a terrible job of communicating what the scientists are saying. We should expect scientists to communicate with the public, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to be experts in media communications. Most of the time, when a scientific discovery is made and released to the media, some general news reporter covers the story and gets key parts of it wrong because he or she has no scientific background or understanding.

    I don't think that scientists should be entirely held to blame for the successful propaganda efforts of the climate-change denialists. Even the CBC gave prime-time air to that famous scientific mind (cough), and AGW denier, Rex Murhphy. Are they going to hand over a spot on The National for creationists alien-abductionists next?

  • Intention Pure

    2 years ago

    What Ragingran said and more!

    OK people I have about had it with CBC this morning as well as Colleen K. CBC stated Canadian forest are a carbon EMITTER, 1 billion tonnes in 20 years, all due to the PINE BEETLE. This is a bald faced LIE and will enable the MFR to log our province in its entirety.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

    Please take the one hour and fifteen minutes to watch the above linked video (cut and paste into browser) carefully researched, referenced documentary that these scientists are risking their safety to publish. This is the same documentary referenced by Ragingran.

    We need to address this LIE about carbon driving global warming. The planet is warming from the surface, not in the troposphere. The planet is warming because THE OCEAN has been warming and the majority of warming occurred before 1940. There are a string of volcanoes under the melting glaciers in the north. The SUN drives climate change cycles.

    The Holocene period was warm for 30,000 years, and not one human in sight. The Sun's magnetic force has doubled in the 20Century.

    Humans produce single digit CO2 output, all the rest of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is from the ocean, volcanoes, animals, bacteria, and decaying plant matter.

    The ice core samples from the Arctic show that there is an 800 year lag between the increase in temperature and the increase in atmospheric CO2. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lag behind temp rises by hundreds of years. Therefore, the warming we are experiencing is not due to greenhouse gases. Water vapor is 95% of greenhouse gases and by far the most important greenhouse gas.

    I will no longer remain silent about these massive frauds in our lives. They have lied to create carbon trading as a stock market commodity. This is the same shite as vaccines, different pile. Thank you for considering this and contact CBC and tell them we will not accept this lie that Canadian forests are carbon emitters!

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Anybody who uses the tern "denialist" can be discounted

    The CBC used Murphy to cover their backsides for having ignored "Climategate" for days.

    Booker,have you seen what the CBC produced before they were forced to get with the AGW program?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr5O1HsTVgA&feature=related

    The scientists who faked the data can certainly be blamed for having perpetrated a fraud. But with Margaret Thatcher saying "There is money on the table for you to prove this stuff.", it would be very hard to ignore or resist.
    Excerpt from video posted by Miss Aware
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dzIMXGI6k8&feature=player_embedded

    The only way to reduce CO2 by the amounts talked about is by the growth of nuclear power, which is why Thatcher pushed the idea of AGW.

    Now do you AGW supporters want that? Just think, you get to add to the stockpile of depleted uranium the military can add to the atmosphere to sterilize everything.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5258

    "Plans for 1st nuclear power plant in Alberta"

    "There are no nuclear power plants in Alberta. Bruce Power is working on a proposal to build a plant about 30 kilometres north of Peace River, in northern Alberta."
    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/12/14/edmonton-nuclear-power-survey-consultation.html

    So, all you Warmists,how do you feel about that?

    I can't fathom how you have all been so focused on CO2 and ignored the DU.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Anybody who uses the tern "warmist" can be discounted

    "So, all you Warmists,how do you feel about that?"

    Why do they want to do that? Does the Peace suddenly need a lot of electrical power? Could it be related to the extraction of the tar sands? If so, how do you feel about supporting the tar sands industry with your denials that the climate is changing quickly.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    What makes a AGW Denier?

    I am a Global Warming Denier.

    As a university student during the 1970's the planet had been on a cooling trend for the last 30 or so years. The conventional wisdom was that we were headed for another Ice Age.

    When the planet started to warm, I thought that was a good thing (sure beats an Ice Age).

    When the environmental movement started to take off and serious concerns were raised over whether mankind was destroying the planet (it seemed likely), I took a serious look into the CO2 thing.

    I could find no reason or mechanism for CO2 causing any environmental harm.

    The deeper I looked into the issue the more falsehoods I found.

    I became a denier because I had come from a scientific background, and I looked into the issue.

    Are there any warmists out there who became warmists because they took a serious look at the issue? Watching An Inconvienient truth does not count.

  • edh

    2 years ago

    I'm Lost!!

    I admit it. I'm lost.
    Who's right? Who's mostly right? Who's partially right? Who's all wrong? Who's only partially wrong?
    Does anybody know for sure whats'a happening?
    I KNOW ONE THING FOR SURE!! Many people are trying to mislead me, in both directions!
    If someone walked up to me on the street and lied to me or threatened me in an attempt to get me to do something I wasn't sure I should do, I'd either kick them or turn and walk away, depending on what they want.
    With this Climate thing, the only thing I know for sure is, I should cut back on waste and I should try to lower my emissions. I'm doing my best!!
    So I wish these climate idiots, both pro and con would just shut up.
    Why not work to find an honest politician somewhere or go find a hungry homeless person and feed and shelter him. Why don't we put this much effort into stopping pedophiles, or find a way to properly punish the fraudsters who have stolen so many folks savings and retirement funds.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    edh

    "or go find a hungry homeless person and feed and shelter him."

    The Right is against that too.

    "or find a way to properly punish the fraudsters who have stolen so many folks savings and retirement funds."

    Because they bankroll the parties in power and therefore said parties aren't allowed to.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Global Warming Cops in Action!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&NR=1

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    edh

    "or go find a hungry homeless person and feed and shelter him."

    The Left can't do that, they're busy having a gabfest jumbo-jet holiday in Copenhagen - at your expense.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    r/man

    How is that since its only Liberal and Conservative government members going?

    Left-wingers are at work.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    The Apocalypse Is Not Upon Us

    http://www.slate.com/id/2238561/

    Buy a condom for someone who can't afford to and save the world.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    r/man

    "They reckon every $7 spent on family planning generates one ton fewer carbon emissions"

    That's $8 less per tonne than the Alberta government charges! Those prices are crazy! Can the price go any lower? Please say yes Dr Nick!

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Illahie

    "As a university student during the 1970's the planet had been on a cooling trend for the last 30 or so years. The conventional wisdom was that we were headed for another Ice Age."

    Both of those assertions are factually incorrect. The planet had not been cooling, and there was no "conventional wisdom" that we were headed for another Ice Age.

    "I could find no reason or mechanism for CO2 causing any environmental harm." It's a heat-trapping gas, and that has been known for 150 years.

    Mopled, the scientists did not fake the data. The so-called "Climategate" is much ado about very little, and the denialists have been deliberately taking statements out of context and twisting their intended meaning. All in a days work for the climate-change denialists.

  • frank2

    2 years ago

    All reporters dealing with

    All reporters dealing with science or health issues should be FORCED to (a) show an understanding of statistics, (b) scientific method, and (c) the nature of "theory" and "fact" in these areas. They should also be acquainted with the main publications in the field they are dealing with, and be responsible for reading a few papers before doing interviews nad writing their articles. I know, no-one is prepared to pay the cost of this. So... we end up with superficial garbage to insert between the ads in the papers and on TV.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Arguing for population control from a CO2

    perspective is silly when higher levels of CO2 during this last few years has actually greened the planet and helped produce more food.

    Lawrence Solomon: The gas of life
    Excerpt:
    "The bureaucrats at Copenhagen dread high CO2 levels. The biosphere craves them. Plants evolved when CO2 levels in the atmosphere stood at a healthy 1000 parts per million, two-to-three times today’s paltry level of about 380 parts per million. Plants crave CO2 so much that commercial greenhouse operators often enrich greenhouse air with CO2 — also known as nature’s fertilizer — to levels of 1500 parts per million, or four times that of our current atmosphere.

    Since humans began adding CO2 to the planet’s atmosphere, taking plants off their starvation rations by creating a planet-wide greenhouse, plants have thrived. Data from NASA satellites, which since the early 1980s have been tracking the amount of biota on Earth, vividly demonstrate the results. As CO2 emissions grew in leaps and bounds, so did plants — the data shows planet Earth is now greener than when those satellite measurements began.

    Growth in greenery varies from country to country, and within countries, because climatic factors are so many and so varied, but the overall trend is clear, and especially in the Third World. The Indian subcontinent, the Amazon, the tropical countries generally, all show marked improvement, with studies pointing to improvements in carbon dioxide levels as an important factor."
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/12/lawrence-solomon-the-gas-of-life.aspx

    Warmists prefer to ignore evidence for the benefits provided by the extra 12-15 ppm of CO2 that humans produce and concentrate on its imaginary quality to magically change climate.

    Warmist, btw Frank isn't derogatory, just descriptive.

    Denier, with its Holocaust freight, very definitely is meant to smear and insult.

    Booker, you are in denial about being terribly misinformed.

    New Peer Reviewed Study: ‘Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics’ by Gerlich & Tscheuschner

    A new peer reviewed paper has been published in the International Journal of Modern Physics. Purchase the paper at the WSPC website for $ 25.00

    G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.

    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

    World Scientific Publishing Co.

    There is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Dont forget Rob, Frank

    NDP's Fleming heads to Copenhagen climate meeting
    By Andrew MacLeod December 11, 2009

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    r/man

    One guy? You can't swing a dead cat in Copenhagen without hitting a right-wing Canadian politician doing Europe on the public dome.

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    Cognitive Dissonance, Climate Change, and Our Beliefs

    One thing clearly happening in all of the climate change threads here at The Tyee (and on the rest of the Internet), and happening on both sides of the argument, is cognitive dissonance.

    While it is on an altogether unrelated topical focus, the following link goes to a very good discussion of cognitive dissonance, and what happens to us when we encounter evidence that contradicts our firmly held beliefs:

    Link: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/12/jaco-gericke-on-collapse-of-realism.html

    Please note that while the topical focus of the linked article is not specific to climate change, that does not matter and should not influence your plan to read (or not read) the article. The relevant and important focus is on cognitive dissonance and our beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be.

    I quote here two paragraphs from the article, to whet the appetites of those few folks here who like to expand their knowledge and horizons.

    "In the 1950's, social and cognitive psychologist Leon Festinger did extensive research on scenarios where people are forced to react on being confronted with what appears to be incontrovertible proof that their beliefs about certain issues were mistaken. To the surprise of many, it was discovered that, in most cases, the more irrefutable the proof, the more stubbornly the subjects clinged to their initial cognitions (cf. Festinger 1956, 1957).

    "The end result of the research by Festinger was his theory of "cognitive dissonance". This theory predicts that people who are confronted with evidence contrary to what they believe and want to believe will not only refuse to revise their beliefs, they will actually irrationally seek to promote them more zealously that ever before (cf. also Batson 1982:50; Carroll 1979:86-109)."

    Another thing that really cannot be emphasized enough, is this accurate statement from Booker:

    "The so-called "Climategate" is much ado about very little, and the denialists have been deliberately taking statements out of context and twisting their intended meaning."

    That, which is completely true, combined with issues of cognitive dissonance, explains a great deal about what is really going on with the so-called Climategate scandal, the vivid disagreement between so-called "Warmists" and "Denialists", and the extremely irrational and stubborn holding on to ideology that is exemplified by the more extreme folks on both sides of the argument.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    You ruined it by showing your bias, SPF

    in agreeing with Booker to dismiss Climategate as inconsequential.

    "The criminals at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in England brazenly defend the indefensible
    The New Big Lie: Climategate Emails Are Not Significant"

    "They claim there’s nothing of consequence in the emails, but they’re a litany of manipulation of, the data, the process, publications, peer review, and personal attacks. Understanding requires knowledge of the science and the history of events."
    ~~~~
    "Denying access or manipulating the data to falsify the models pervades the emails. Jones wrote to Mann on Feb 26 2004. “Most of the data series in most of the plots have just appeared on the CRU web site. Go to data then to paleoclimate. Did this to stop getting hassled by the skeptics for the data series. Mike Mann refuses to talk to these people and I can understand why. They are just trying to find if we’ve done anything wrong.” Jones to Mann, Bradley and Hughes on Feb 21 2005. “I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

    These are not innocent comments. What was there to hide? Answer how they falsified the data as the emails expose when you put them in context."

    You also display all of the symptoms of CD by refusing to recognize there is NOTHING to back up the AGW claims.

    NOTHING.

    ALL THERE was WAS A SHORT-TERM CORRELATION...THAT IS NOW GONE...THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE.

    So who is suffering from cognitive dissonance now?

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    mopled ...

    I never claimed to be bias-free. I'd be a fool to do so as I've made my bias very clear elsewhere.

    mopled said:

    "So who is suffering from cognitive dissonance now?"

    Most of us are, including me. I certainly never said otherwise.

    Are you sure you understand what cognitive dissonance is? Did you read the article? It's very intersting stuff. Probably most of us experience it in this debate. It's a challenging, frustrating, and emotionally charged debate.

    Some folks are actually trying to expand the discussion, but most, on both sides, myself included, are just parroting ideology.

    Perhaps the louder and prouder the insistence on a personal ideolgy reflects a decline in veracity?

    Perhaps not. I'm not sure.

  • willy

    2 years ago

    global news

    Tony tonight said sea level is projected to rise so it must be true.

  • superjudge

    2 years ago

    human caused

    The only thing being caused by humans is the panic and paranoia over climate change. Climates have changed for billions of years, and sorry to say but is has more do to with sunspots than C02. Beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing.

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    moped said

    moped said, "There are no nuclear power plants in Alberta."

    I believe there is a Slowpoke nuclear reactor at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, unless it was closed down in the last few years.

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Wake up. The (global warming) dream is over.

    Once you grasp a concept, you certainly like to beat it death Sic.

    It is said that people are most critical of qualities in others that they dislike in themselves and you certainly take the cake on that one. How can it be that someone who claims to be an atheist can also write, that in comparison to Christmas, Hannukah (or anything for that matter) has "profound religious intent and practices?"

    There is no-one more cognitively dissonant than the duped global warmers who take money with a hand behind their back from oil companies so that they see no evil and then give the finger to those who don't believe the fraud because if they have nothing to hide, they must be the on the oil dole.

    And what about those who belittle belief in Christ's second coming and then embrace the Dalai Lama and the doctrine of reincarnation?

    Or the descendants of a Turkic kingdom who converted to Judaism in 900 BC and now claim the historic land of genuinely Semitic Jews, Christians and Arabs on the grounds that God promised to the land to the seed of Abraham and then commit any act of atrocity to convince the world that is them and not the people they are murdering.

    Or the "red diaper" babies who squirm in their shitty pants when anyone brings up the tens of millions of innocent people who died horrific deaths to bring about their parent's fantasy worker's paradise and then still presume they have some kind of right to tell the rest of us what to believe and how to live.

    Cognitive dissonance or sheer hypocrisy?

    I'm not one for endless navel gazing, I like to look at the big picture and the big picture is that the intergenerational nasties who are going for the last grasp at world domination in Copenhagen rejected the keystone long ago and are what they are, a headless monster without morals or conscience that will harness the very best intentions of those naive enough to believe its lies, in this case, the increasingly criminal myth of global warming.

  • snert

    2 years ago

    Herd Mentality

    This article is on "Information Cascades and Rational Herding."

    Sceptics do serve a pupose and the instant pressure is applied to make them go away the world truely is doomed.

    http://www.info-cascades.info/

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Love the tin-foil hats

    This conspiracy-mongering is truly hilarious. Unfortunately, it seems fairly widespread these days, perhaps due to the easy spread of misinformation and urban mythology through social networking, etc. The same fallacies started by the denialist's PR campaign have become memes in our society -- and once implanted they become very difficult to dislodge. Psychological studies have shown that when you publicly denounce a lie (eg: that scientists in the 1970s believed we were heading towards a new Ice Age) people will often actually remember the lie as being true rather than false. So what does one do? I guess you just try to reason with people who are capable of reason.

    (I just hope the AGW denialists don't actually discover the emails about our plan for Global Domination. Our enviro-socialist movement must push on until our atheist world government gains control over the masses' precious bodily fluids...)

    Meanwhile, that somewhat conservative organization, the AP, has independently examined all the emails of "Climategate", and while they discovered some behaviour on the part of several scientists that is questionable, there was no fraud. The scientific facts are still the facts.

    The independent analysis of the emails is here:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

    End of story? Remember the phrase, "9/11 was an inside job"?

  • snert

    2 years ago

    The word 'hoax'

    Seems it is being used equally by a number of small minded people on both sides of the argument.

    I guess we're doomed for sure as the more the word gets repeated the more people will believe it.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Harper pwned

    The Yes Men hoax on the Harper government has to go down as the Mona Lisa of hoaxes -- a thing of sublime beauty (but funny).

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    Booker ...

    You make some sound points. It is unfortunate for all of us that trying to carry on a discussion or debate about climate change with deniers (so-called) is very much like trying to carry on a discussion or debate about evolution with Creationsts. Logic and fact become mangled and twisted into all sorts of unrecognizable forms, rhetorical trickery backs everyone into indefensible corners, and rationality just goes flying right out the window at light speed.

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    Booker 2 (Harper pwned) ...

    And amen and Yes to that!

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Booker

    Shhh on the bodily fluids thing and please destroy all my emails with "Huzzah for Nazi eugenics!" in the title. Wouldn't want those on the front page of the WSJ.

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    AP owned by Reuters, Reuters owned by Rothschilds

    The AP is a private news agency that was purchased by Reuters about twenty years ago. In turn, Reuters has been owned by the House of Rothschilds since the 1800s.

    An interesting article about the effect of Rothschilds controlled media in pre- WW2 Germany can be found in the online version of the 13 Nov 1944 of Life magazine wherin then AP head Kent Cooper describes the "world news cartels" and calls for "the unhampered flow of world news."

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=3UEEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=freedom+of+information+kent+cooper&source=bl&ots=ytfb8JVScI&sig=OAKwSWsPrBxT2FS4IQMMjOtNnSA&hl=en&ei=2wopS6vaBZGotgPrzpTEDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=freedom%20of%20information%20kent%20cooper&f=false

    In the article called Freedom of Information, Cooper describes the relationship between the Kaiser and the Rothschilds-owned German news agency Wolff and states that, "Such an arrangement can only be understood by supposing that a US president, through his personal banker, controlled the Associated Press and thus could dictate what the AP would send to the US press to print about and his policies."

    And now that the Rothschilds do indeed own AP, Coopers fear is a reality.

    Perhaps you do not remember Booker how a media biased in favor of the PR firm generated "sustainable forestry" concept poisoned the forest management debate in rural BC and enlisted a huge percentage of the public to support it.

    Yet in a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade last fall, Forest Minister quietly laid to rest "the myth that the supply (of timber) was inexhaustible."

    There were those of us who stood up to the myth then and we were blacklisted, threatened, harassed, had our families and employers harassed and threatened,were driven out of jobs, had our vehicles vandalized, accused of slander and had people we had known for decades suddenly tell us that they couldn't be seen talking to us in public.

    As James Corbett says, it isn't always popular to stand up for the truth, but it is always right.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Booker

    Shhh on the bodily fluids thing and please destroy all my emails with "Huzzah for Nazi eugenics!" in the title. Wouldn't want those on the front page of the WSJ.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Booker

    Shhh on the bodily fluids thing and please destroy all my emails with "Huzzah for Nazi eugenics!" in the title. Wouldn't want those on the front page of the WSJ.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    Booker

    Shhh on the bodily fluids thing and please destroy all my emails with "Huzzah for Nazi eugenics!" in the title. Wouldn't want those on the front page of the WSJ.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Janie

    I hate to be picky, but the link you provided does not say that the Rothchilds own AP. The author says that the Kaiser's banker (a member of the Rothchild's banking firm) owned Wolf, the German news organization. He says that would be like the U.S. President's banker owning the Associated Press, so that the President could control the flow of news in the U.S. It's an analogy. I have to also say that bringing up "the Rothchilds" evokes certain unpleasant historical references, and I hope you don't plan on taking the argument to its traditional conclusion. It has absolutely nothing to do with climate science and is simply conspiracy mongering of a particularly malignant variety.

    If you have a specific criticism of the of the content of the independent analysis commissioned by the AP (which is a co-operative, by the way, owned by 1,500 newspapers in the U.S.) then put it forth.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Aren't they clever with words?

    What they manage to leave out of their banter is anything of substance. Could we have a fact once in a while? Like, do you have anything beside the compromised IPCC report to back up your hysteria about a "climate catastrophe "now that CRU says "the dog ate global warming" and that the raw data for the temperature record was thrown out?

    The Russians are also complaining about cherry-picking data.

    "Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

    Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

    The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

    On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

    IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

    The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

    Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research."

    http://en.rian.ru/papers/20091216/157260660.html

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Be honest

    "now that CRU says "the dog ate global warming" and that the raw data for the temperature record was thrown out?"

    They say no such thing. This is typical of the denialists. As SicPreFix says above, it's like debating creationists. It's completely pointless and it simply illustrates why Paul Jones of the CRU got so angry at the so-called "skeptics" and tried to stonewall them. It doesn't justify his stonewalling, but it makes it understandable -- he being a human-being and all.

    I'm not going to waste my day teaching a denialist basic science that should have been learned in high school.

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    Frank ...

    All that talk of bodily fluids (and our primal essences) must have got you overexcited. Quad posts indeed!

    LOL.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    In denial again Booker?

    "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”

    [...]

    In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

    The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible."
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    Warmists never seem to learn that the alarmist sites lie to them.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Yawn

    Mopled's quote: "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based."

    The CRU is not the keeper of the world's climate data. This is yet another red-herring. It's not a big deal that they didn't keep the raw data (which came from outside sources in any case). The temperature data has been confirmed by multiple independent sources.

    Time for you to answer a simple question. Please explain how a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 and Methane (which is happening, thanks to us pumping billions of tonnes of it into the air) could NOT result in a rise in average temperature. Let's see the math on that.

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Intellectual Elite & World Bankers vs National Autodetermination

    Booker the link I provided is to the Life magazine article which was written approx 50 years ago before it is said that Reuters acquired AP.

    As for "the Rothschilds" and the knee jerk reaction that any mention of them "evokes certain unpleasant historical references" information of their majority shareholding in the private banks that own the US Federal Reserve is very easy to come by and you are as capable of doing a Google search as I am.

    OTOH information on who owns Reuters and the AP is very difficult to find online because of the tens of millions of Reuters and AP bylines that come up when a search is initiated. As I cannot find any corroboration of this information in terms of press releases etc. right now with the limited time I have available I'll have to leave you with this:

    "Let us take a look at the Associated Press (AP):
    'The end result of the AP network has been the creation of a news supply chain that reliably turns out monolithic, center-left news. Each evening, the New York Times and Washington Post coordinate their stories, creating what is erroneously referred to as the "national conversation,” but is really how the world looks to editors writing for audiences in the nation’s liberal centers of money and power. These stories are then slavishly followed by the TV networks, spread by the NY Times, Washington Post, and AP news services to metro papers, whose stories are, in turn, slavishly repeated by local TV stations.

    AP has 2 important members: The Washington Post and the New York Times
    According to Barry Goldwater, who ran for US presidency, they are controlled by Rockefeller´s Council on Foreign Relations/Trilatereral Commission – as is Ted Turner who founded the CNN – but sold it.
    Such media will spread whatever news their masters command them to. So, no wonder that David Rockefeller stated in 1991 (Bilderberg Meeting - also quoted in a comment in the Washington Post on Jan 24, 2008): 'We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years…It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.'"

    Source:
    http://euro-med.dk/?p=5296

  • Saline Canine

    2 years ago

    Another biased babble

    Nice try, Colleen....but it just doesn't wash anymore.

    As a climatologist myself, I can state uniquivocably that I am not a denier. That sounds to religious for me. I AM a sceptic and there is much to be sceptical about.

    If man has contributed to global warming, it is a minor event compared with the natural processes at play. The debate is over.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Goldwater

    Well I didn't expect him to enter the conversation. In 1964 his campaign slogan was "In your heart, you know he's right". The Johnson campaign deftly countered with the line, "In your guts, you know he's nuts." An appropriate sentiment for the controversy under discussion.

    Physics was my best and favourite subject, so I'm still waiting for Mopled's new Laws that show that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. Perhaps he's attending Google University as I type.

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    Denier Logic - MIA

    I think that Mopled deliberately misconstrued the item about the amount of heat required to melt ice. Brian's point was that if ice is melting, then this indicates that much more heat is being produced than just that required to warm up already thawed ice, ie. lots more heat is being supplied than "common sense" might initially indicate.

    More importantly, Mopled: "Far more energy is needed to melt the Arctic than the atmosphere overhead can deliver." And this is documented where?

    "That is why it is time to look at all those volcanoes lining the tectonic plate edges HIDDEN
    UNDER the seas.

    "It's not Global Warming, it's Ocean Warming
    Major undersea eruptions
    4 Nov 09 – Here are links to a couple of cool videos showing huge amounts of ash, rocks and steam emanating from underwater volcanoes."

    Ah, now it's all clear! I'm so relieved. Can't imagine how 1200+/- mostly highly motivated, mostly a-political, mostly conscientious IPCC climate scientists could have missed that! Doubtless they'll get Mopled to set them straight ASAP.

    I'm amazed that the CC deniers can so easily dismiss massive evidence by mostly competent researchers (even allowing for the foibles revealed by ClimateGate) but readily embrace such unsupported balderdash as the above hooey about volcanoes melting polar ice rather than global ocean/atmospheric warming.

    As Booker asked:
    "Time for you to answer a simple question. Please explain how a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 and Methane (which is happening, thanks to us pumping billions of tonnes of it into the air) could NOT result in a rise in average temperature. Let's see the math on that."

    We're all waiting for the peer reviewed evidence.

    Cheers . . . . . Springfield Harrison

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Nice try Booker

    . . . but it just doesn't wash anymore.

  • Booker

    2 years ago

    Enough fantasy

    Show us the math.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    SicPreFix

    I had a plausible albeit complex explanation for that quad posting but its just easier for me to say I agree with your reasoning :)

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Climate is composed of many factors

    Periodic Arctic warming is only one of them. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is another. Let we forget, there is the overarching Milankovitch Cycle.

    One of the most important factors determining climate change seems to be the sun's cycles. So of course it was never considered by the IPCC because they narrowed their focus to include only human causes. They also left out consideration of water vapour, because it was too hard to model, and it represents about 90% of the supposed greenhouse effect.

    Do you get the feeling the IPCC examination was rigged from the get-go?

    Now children, please sit still for less than 10 minutes and watch the lecture on

    SOLAR FLARE EFFECTS ON WEATHER
    "Solar flare effects from increased solar activity have been on the rise for the last 100 years or so, and reliable research indicates that sunspot activity is directly correlated with warmer temperatures on earth.

    Sunspot activity is a solar flare effect that has been tracked since shortly after the invention of the telescope in 1610.

    This data provides the longest direct measurement of the sun's activity, and reveals the 11-year sunspot activity cycle, as well as other longer-term solar changes.

    Also, these records show a notable period of almost non-existent sunspot activity that occurred between 1645 and 1715, known as the Maunder Minimum and named after the English astronomer who studied it.

    This period was also dubbed the "Little Ice Age" because of the prolonged period of low temperatures that happened during that same time.

    Another indication of previous cold periods is evidenced by tree ring measurements that show slower growth during periods of prolonged cold.

    Furthermore, based on research done on ice core samples from Greenland, a team of scientists headed by Sami Solanki at the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich, Switzerland has re-constructed a history of solar flare effects and the sun's activity in the past.

    This research demonstrates that over the last century, the number of sunspots increased as the Earth's climate became gradually warmer."
    continues with VIDEO
    http://www.truth-it.net/solar_flare_effects.html

    Now, please remember that there is no longer a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    No correlation = No causation.

    Remember also, it was always just an unproven hypothesis and is now shot full of holes by Gaia herself. Oh, the deliciousness of it.

  • Frank

    2 years ago

    mopled

    Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sunspots-do-not-cause-climate-change-say-scientists-1839867.html

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Frank, I just told you why

    the Warmists dismiss the MANY effects of the Sun.

    THE VERY LATEST WORD:
    NCAR: “number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth”
    17 09 2009

    NCAR
    Solar Cycle Driven by More than Sunspots; Sun Also Bombards Earth with High-Speed Streams of Wind

    From an NCAR press release September 17, 2009

    BOULDER—Challenging conventional wisdom, new research finds that the number of sunspots provides an incomplete measure of changes in the Sun’s impact on Earth over the course of the 11-year solar cycle. The study, led by scientists at the High Altitude Observatory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Michigan, finds that Earth was bombarded last year with high levels of solar energy at a time when the Sun was in an unusually quiet phase and sunspots had virtually disappeared.

    “The Sun continues to surprise us,” says NCAR scientist Sarah Gibson, the lead author. “The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots.”

    The study, also written by scientists at NOAA and NASA, is being published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research – Space Physics. It was funded by NASA and by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.

    Scientists for centuries have used sunspots, which are areas of concentrated magnetic fields that appear as dark patches on the solar surface, to determine the approximately 11-year solar cycle. At solar maximum, the number of sunspots peaks. During this time, intense solar flares occur daily and geomagnetic storms frequently buffet Earth, knocking out satellites and disrupting communications networks.'
    CONT'D
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/17/ncar-number-of-sunspots-provides-an-incomplete-measure-of-changes-in-the-suns-impact-on-earth/

    Remember other planets underwent warming and cooling at the same time earth did? Remember NO SUVs on Mars, Jupitor, Saturn and even far away Pluto, but they warmed anyway?

    Whatever it is, IT AIN'T CO2.

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Janie Jones

    AP is a collective, created in 1846.

    Who owns The Associated Press?
    The Associated Press is a not-for-profit cooperative, which means it is owned by its 1,500 U.S. daily newspaper members. They elect a board of directors that directs the cooperative.

    http://www.ap.org/pages/about/faq.html#2
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press

    Reuters is now Canadian. Thompson bought it in 2008.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters

  • realisticman

    2 years ago

    Sunspots

    Some say they do have an effect:

    http://sidc.be/esww6/specialevents/debate.php
    http://sidc.oma.be/news/116/welcome.html
    http://sidc.oma.be/index.php

  • Janie Jones

    2 years ago

    Wikipedia

    Thanks for the update realistic man. The information I came across is unsourced but I wonder what Rockefeller was going on about then.

  • Des

    2 years ago

    Sunspots

    are interesting things. Galileo himself saw and reported them. Did they exist before then? Why didn't they 'cause' global warming then - both before and after Galileo first saw them?

    CO2 has varied wildly in atmospheric composition over millions of years. So has global warning (and icing up). It makes more sense to connect those dots than to haul 'sunspots' and their undoubted effects on the aurora borealis and radio transmissions into the discussion.

    The 'percentage' of CO2 in the atmosphere is often quoted as 'too low' to cause global warning. However, it is not the percentage that makes the difference, but the actual volume, measured in 'parts per million.' I suppose that contrarians supporting percentages would then prefer that I give them the full 100% of $50.000. rather than the mere 60% of $100,000. that I had in mind.

  • Des

    2 years ago

    Sunspots

    are interesting things. Galileo himself saw and reported them. Did they exist before then? Why didn't they 'cause' global warming then - both before and after Galileo first saw them?

    CO2 has varied wildly in atmospheric composition over millions of years. So has global warning (and icing up). It makes more sense to connect those dots than to haul 'sunspots' and their undoubted effects on the aurora borealis and radio transmissions into the discussion.

    The 'percentage' of CO2 in the atmosphere is often quoted as 'too low' to cause global warning. However, it is not the percentage that makes the difference, but the actual volume, measured in 'parts per million.' I suppose that contrarians supporting percentages would then prefer that I give them the full 100% of $50.000. rather than the mere 60% of $100,000. that I had in mind.

  • willy

    2 years ago

    Howdy booker

    How are your cap and trade stocks doing?

  • Fiat lux

    2 years ago

    Anybody who claims that the

    Anybody who claims that the huge amount of pollution spewed into the environment and the bodies of people doesn't cause any harm has serious problems and must be a Reform Party Flat Earth voter.

    Just look at the cancer statistics per 1,000, going back only 60 years.

    But it all "creates wealth", doesn't it ? (Well, at least into the pockets of the chosen few)

    Ed Deak.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    Climategate is starting to spread

    Russian data cherrypicked by CRU to make temperatures look higher than they really are.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Ed, that is outrageously wrong

    CO2 isn't pollution. THAT IS WHERE THEIR SCAM STARTS.Characterizing anyone who understands that as "Reform Party Flat Earth voter" is just another smear. Perhaps you are suffering from "cognitive dissonance" and have forgotten high school level biology and chemistry.

    The effort gone into misrepresenting what is the basis for life certainly has snared people I thought were too smart to fall for such trash science.

    Des,CO2 is present at only 385 parts per million by volume. The human contribution is only 12-15 parts per million by volume.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmLW4k4aI&feature=player_embedded

    Blaming CO2 for changing the climate is superstitious nonsense promulgated by a corrupt, vicious elite who lie and steal from us and who want world governance.

    What is even sicker, is that a warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. Things grow better.

    "The bureaucrats at Copenhagen dread high CO2 levels. The biosphere craves them. Plants evolved when CO2 levels in the atmosphere stood at a healthy 1000 parts per million, two-to-three times today’s paltry level of about 380 parts per million. Plants crave CO2 so much that commercial greenhouse operators often enrich greenhouse air with CO2 — also known as nature’s fertilizer — to levels of 1500 parts per million, or four times that of our current atmosphere.

    Since humans began adding CO2 to the planet’s atmosphere, taking plants off their starvation rations by creating a planet-wide greenhouse, plants have thrived. Data from NASA satellites, which since the early 1980s have been tracking the amount of biota on Earth, vividly demonstrate the results. As CO2 emissions grew in leaps and bounds, so did plants — the data shows planet Earth is now greener than when those satellite measurements began.

    Growth in greenery varies from country to country, and within countries, because climatic factors are so many and so varied, but the overall trend is clear, and especially in the Third World. The Indian subcontinent, the Amazon, the tropical countries generally, all show marked improvement, with studies pointing to improvements in carbon dioxide levels as an important factor."
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/12/lawrence-solomon-the-gas-of-life.aspx

  • soleprobe

    2 years ago

    "...huge amount of pollution spewed into the environment..."

    I do agree that huge amounts of pollution spewed into the environment cause harm but CO2 is not pollution. Regarding cancer, CO2 does not cause cancer.

    Regarding “bodies of people”. People are not filth. People are the most amazing creatures on the planet. The most despicable creatures on this planet are the few sicko control freaks that won’t leave the rest of us alone until most of the “bodies of people” are wiped off the planet through war, disease and famine (artificial scarcity created through phony environmentalism).

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    Red Herrings from Mopled

    Mopled:

    As Booker asked (twice):
    "Time for you to answer a simple question. Please explain how a dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 and Methane (which is happening, thanks to us pumping billions of tonnes of it into the air) could NOT result in a rise in average temperature. Let's see the math on that."

    Found anything on YouTube yet?

    How about this one? "Far more energy is needed to melt the Arctic than the atmosphere overhead can deliver."

    Here's a dandy, really rational:

    "Blaming CO2 for changing the climate is superstitious nonsense promulgated by a corrupt, vicious elite who lie and steal from us and who want world governance.

    "What is even sicker, is that a warmer Earth is a more productive Earth. Things grow better."

    Even underwater?

    Give me strength . . .

    Cheers . . . . . Springfield Harrison

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    The "science IS settled"

    It is up to those who propose an hypothesis to prove it. That hasn't been done with "man-made CO2 changes the climate". The IPCC only claimed a "90% certainty". Based on what we now know, thanks to Climategate, the IPCC was a rigged job by insiders

    Meanwhile,
    "CAMPAIGNERS yesterday attempted to pour scorn on “tenuous” global warming theories by issuing a dossier detailing 100 reasons why climate change is natural and not man-made.

    The list includes the controversial claim that there is “no scientific proof” that rising levels of greenhouse gases are caused by human activity.
    The report, by the respected European Foundation, also argues that a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the main greenhouse gas – is not a problem because it helps to boost crop yields.

    And it claims that the warming we are now experiencing is “mostly natural”, pointing to historic shifts in the climate such as when Vikings farmed on Greenland in medieval times."
    **SEE THE 100 REASONS HERE**
    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/146139/100-reasons-why-global-warming-is-natural

    So,there is no scientific basis on which to build a master control center bureaucracy to regulate, tax and control, but that is what Harper will sign on to. We will get global governance by stealth. The World Bank will handle the money and have its own military for enforcement of policy.

    They refer to it now as the "institutional framework", because the word government makes people nervous.

    The stooges for the Banksters out front are in line for making mega-bucks...besides Gore, Strong, Goldman Sachs there is now Pachauri.

    "THE head of the world's top climate change body has been accused of a conflict of interest over his many business directorships, just days after he used his keynote speech at the Copenhagen summit to attack global warming sceptics.

    Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and head of India's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has come under attack over his involvement in a long list of fossil fuel, venture capital, alternative energy, research and motor vehicle companies."

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/panel-chief-rajendra-pachauri-under-attack/story-e6frg6nf-1225811553646

    "It is time for Railroad Engineer Pachauri to get back to his signal-box. About the climate, as they say in New York’s Jewish quarter, he knows from nothing."
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/#more-14254

  • Des

    2 years ago

    Logic

    is not a characteristic of AGW deniers. The more they search for approval of their obstinate paranoia in weird blogs published by know-nothings, the more they reveal of their single-minded search for justification.

    Consequently, I have to leave them to their illusions, when I realize that the truth does not always make one free.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Des, you are the "know-nothing"

    Warmists keep nipping at nothing because they can't prove CO2 changes climate.

    The Australian is a newspaper and Anthony Watts is a meteorologist, His blog is highly rated and awarded.He is also involved in this project: http://www.surfacestations.org

    "Started on June 4th 2007, is designed for the express purpose of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA. USHCN is a subset of the larger COOP network of stations in the USA, of which there are about 9000. The USHCN subset has been hand picked by the National Climatic Data Center to be more regionally representative due to their placement, length of service and minimum station moves. Unfortunately, the network has fallen into neglect, and the temperature data produced by it is suspect due to microsite biases. See what has been learned so far here in this slide show."

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

    Educate yourself, Des. Take a look at the pathetic condition of the temperature data collection sites.

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    Shocking Revelation - NOT

    I just looked at the slide show of the weather stations. Ho Hum. If the whole climate change case rested on these 331 stations, I'd be very concerned. But I know that it doesn't.

    It depends on (probably) atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial measurements of greater and lesser quality plus corroborating evidence from ice cores, and tree rings plus other techniques. As well, statistical methods are available to account for/de-emphasize poorer data.

    I get the impression that you firstly, for personal (not scientific) reasons developed a dislike for the AGW movement and secondly, are desperately searching for contrary evidence. These slides are a pretty pathetic offering.

    With respect, why don't you deal with the questions posed above and do something useful instead of continually hurling out red herrings?

    Cheers . . . . . Springfield Harrison

  • Des

    2 years ago

    I wouldn't

    expect that every (or even 'most') weather stations in the world would report temperature 'trends' perfectly. Sea-level rise is not evenly distributed everywhere around the globe. Glacial icemelt does not prevent snowstorms from happening in Edmonton.

    But taken altogether, it is obvious to a logical mind that Climate Change is happening, is anthropocentric, is accelerating, is dangerous, is irrationally denied by some for undisclosed reasons, probably monetary in nature.

    BTW, cap and trade control restriction has worked in the recent past to limit SO2 acidification of lakes in Ontario and Quebec, to reduce the production of flurocarbon refrigerants and shrink the hole in the ozone over the south polar regions, and to remove phosphorus from the detergents flowing into Lake Erie and over-fertilizing the algae growth there.

  • mopled

    2 years ago

    Sorry, you have to PROVE humans change climate.

    You can't assume it.....so, where is that proof again?

    Even Gov.Jesse Ventura is on to the scam. His program is pretty hokey, but revealing.

    "The trail then leads to Maurice Strong, “the world’s leading environmentalist, who just happens to be a billionaire industrialist.”

    As we have documented, Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.

    By using his considerable wealth and influence to lobby for cap and trade and a tax on CO2 emissions, Strong stands to enrich his company’s coffers to the tune of trillions if a binding agreement on carbon dioxide is formulated in Copenhagen.

    Strong and his close ally Al Gore come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

    Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome.

    In their 1991 report, The First Global Revolution, the Club of Rome, a powerful globalist NGO committed to limiting growth and bringing in a post-industrial society, conspired to exploit fears about the environment to make humans the enemy so they could usher in a global government.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself,” states the report."

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report.html

  • North of Hope

    2 years ago

    Illahie refers to"Climategate is starting to spread"

    Here is part of the article.

    Climategate is starting to spread

    Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to then-Russian President Putin, is head of his own thinktank in Moscow, the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA). He is also a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian American thinktank. He has always been a climate sceptic, having vigorously opposed Russia's signing up to the Kyoto protocols.

    Give us a break and use a scientific source.

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    (more) Red Herrings from Mopled

    "Even Gov.Jesse Ventura is on to the scam. His program is pretty hokey, but revealing."

    Now there's a credible source!

    I don't doubt that there are powerful, sinister, self serving groups lying in the weeds that don't have the interests of the little people foremost in their hearts. But I doubt if they could, or would be bothered to try, to orchestrate umpteen scientists in hundreds of institutions to systematically manufacture data to support the case for human-caused climate change.

    Anyway, it's happening! It's almost too late to seek a remedy but it's worth a try. The Mopleds of the world only delay and hinder that process.

    Cheers . . . . Spring Harrison

    PS/ I agree with others, these folks are impervious to facts, reason and logic.

  • ME2

    2 years ago

    Attention Believers

    I wonder if all you Believers, who are so very quick to question the associations of Denier scientists / spokemen, will be reponding to Maurice Strong's associations, as pointed out by Mopled.

    Quote:
    "Strong, who was groomed by David Rockefeller to eventually serve as Director of the Rockefeller Foundation, is also a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Club of Rome"

    Pretty nice bunch, alright.

  • Illahie

    2 years ago

    This is why we need the UN to run the planet

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/17/myron-ebell-copenhagen-climate-change-obama/

  • sidneybc

    2 years ago

    climate realist

    A climate realist is one who researches everything and is sceptical about everything.

    We are below the ten thousand year average temperature on the planet. In the last ten thousand years the earth's temperature has been 2 to 5 degrees warmer than it is today. That means that we have had less polar and glacier ice in the last ten thousand year. The polar bears have done just fine through it all.

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_tenthousand.php

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    The UN is loaded with criminals. Why would you trust their science. Research the former Secretary General Kofi Annan and the founder of the UN's environmental programme Maurice Strong (oil for food scandal)

    Maurice Strong and Al Gore are both oil tycoons.

    World Wildlife Fund was started by Nazi.

    http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm

    30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore for fraud in regards with lies in his movie. 9000 of them have PhD’s.

    Here is a great summery of the Climate gate emails
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE

    Start from scratch trust no one and do your own research.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

  • SicPreFix

    2 years ago

    This is so rich!

    mopled said:

    "Even Gov.Jesse Ventura is on to the scam."

    Jesse Ventura. A man who used action figures to get himself elected to public office. mopled's latest authority figure. Go figure.

    So, mopled, rather than allow that perhaps, just perhaps the thousands of professionally trained climatologists, who have spent years studying their profession and the climate and who are to a nice majority in consensus on the more important issues of climate change, you will use as your guide to science a man who has spent the better part of his life as a professional liar, playing pretend macho-king-boy in a faux sport whose fans consist mainly of illiterates and testerone overburdened teenage boys of questionable parents; a man with no, that's Z. E. R. O. training in anything even remotely science related, with a professional background of bilking idiots out of their hard earned cash to watch a bloodsport entertainment based on fantasy, deceit, and deception....

    This is your latest authority? On climate change?

    I would fall on the floor laughing if I weren't rendered so numb with amazement.

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    Denier Downside

    SicPreFix:

    Great post. Ditto.

    Not to say that there aren't some problems with the science and that Climategate hasn't uncovered some dubious tactics - the deniers at best are only able to cast doubt and create controversy with red herrings, not to discredit the overall process and conclusions.

    The danger is that they draw a lot of energy away from dealing with the real problem , however caused.

    Cheers . . . . Spring Harrison

  • Des

    2 years ago

    There Is A Time

    for everything under the Sun, a time to be skeptical and a time to believe. I've used up my time being skeptical, now I believe.

    I no longer trust the skeptics - their ranks include too many liars. Too many self-serving paranoids. Too many conspiracy addicts. Too many contrarians. Too many fact-twisters. Not enough idealists. Not enough literates. Not enough scientists.

    I believe in AGW because I have done my own research. I have looked at photographic evidence. I have read news reports (not 'opinions') I pay attention to statistics, not blogs. I have made up my mind, based upon the evidence before me, that AGW is real, is imminent, is dangerous, and that deniers must have ulterior motives in obfuscating the issue with irrelevancies. But we live in a free society, so you're welcome to say what you want. And so am I. Have a Merry Christmas, cherish the holiness of this season, because there might not be many more of them.

  • Saline Canine

    2 years ago

    Nice try Des....

    Done your own research, hey? Good for you...I would give you a star of recognition but in the world of socialism, that is frowned upon.

    If you have read the news reports, you will know that there is no such thing as climategate and that their are only deniers...as in the holacoust type.

    I am proud to say that I am only certain of two things- the earth is indeed flat and man is the cause of global climate change. Yes I do....in this alternate universe of idealists, literates, scientists and left wing nuts I live in.

  • stellar0645

    2 years ago

    Des proven right in the next post!

    Saline Canine:

    Couldn't make much sense of your post. It amply exemplifies Des' assessment:

    "I no longer trust the skeptics - their ranks include too many liars. Too many self-serving paranoids. Too many conspiracy addicts. Too many contrarians. Too many fact-twisters. Not enough idealists. Not enough literates. Not enough scientists."

    I think Des has summed it up very well. I'd be interested to see the denier camp prove him wrong with some factual material but I don't think this is very likely.

    Cheers . . . . . Spring Harrison

  • Des

    2 years ago

    stellar0645 - cheers back to you -

    although this is probably not the proper venue for personal appreciation. I support the rights of those opposed to any 'idea' and especially their right to self-expression. But I also reserve the same right for myself. I believe that if something - anything - cannot be explained by intuitive logic then more research is required to make the explanation more logical. There is never enough 'logic' applied when 'opinions' are supplied as 'fact,' no matter how 'real' they seem to be.

    Ah, well - Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.