• Econophile
    03/18/2010 - 13:42
    We think that China is an indestructible economic juggernaut but its economy is very fragile and it is sitting on a property bubble which will burst. What China does in response has major implications for their economy and the rest of the world. This is the third part of a three-part series on this topic: The Consequences.
  • Reggie Middleton
    03/18/2010 - 07:54
    The Greek saga continues, exactly as was anticipated. For all of those who don't regularly read me, this is really not about Greece but about the start of either default or significant depression throughout a large swath of the Eurozone. Greece is the firestarter and it looks as if we are starting to burn...

Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud

Project Mayhem's picture




Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud

by Project Mayhem

 

Russian computer hackers have published emails and source code from the UN-affiliated Climate Research Unit showing profound corruption, fraud, and criminal activity. What's really behind the Copenhagen treaty?

 




Recently, Russian hackers published over 160mb of scientific emails and source code taken from the primary 'climate research unit' -- the University of East Anglia, which is the center of UN/IPCC-promoted global warming alarmism. What the emails and data prove is shocking, and may represent the greatest scandal in the history of science.

 

In the emails, these UN-funded scientists talk about deleting data under FOIA request, faking data for journals such as Nature, conspiring to keep opposing science out of peer-reviewed journals (which they controlled the editorial boards), using "tricks" to "hide the [cooling period]" etc.


A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda. The degree of collusion between big media, the UN, and corrupted scientists involved in frank criminal activity is deeply disturbing. As I have detailed before, the purpose here is a political one. Global warming, or now abstractly identified as 'climate change', has been chosen by international banks and think tanks as the method of induction of vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world.  

We see based on the activities of criminals representing themselves as 'climate scientists' that the politics came first, and the science came second. They were more than happy to represent the political interests of the UN and international banks  -- as long as their lab was well-funded.  But there are politics behind this indeed.  Here is a small sample of the underlying political agenda: Billions in new taxes, International regulatory control under the UN, Goldman Sachs/CCX carbon trading, Obliteration of national sovereignty, extreme forced austerity and reduction of the standard of living, deindustrialization of the First World countries, and implementation of Orwellian state policies for the purposes of "carbon tracking". The science does not matter -- the politics does.

 

Let us consider for a moment the cynical political objectives behind 'global warming' before we delve into the mountain of evidence thanks to the leaked emails and source code.

 

 


Global Warming and Orwellian State Policy

The Dutch government attempts to introduce GPS tracking units in everyone's cars under the pretext of 'climate change'.

 


THE HAGUE — The Dutch government said Friday it wants to introduce a "green" road tax by the kilometre from 2012 aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 10 percent and halving congestion.

"Each vehicle will be equipped with a GPS device that tracks how many kilometres are driven and when and where. This data will be then be sent to a collection agency that will send out the bill," the transport ministry said in a statement.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iYPTOtIepVKcGL_AcCZFe1ht99UQ

 

 

 

 

Global Warming and New Taxes

One of the primary political aspects of the global warming fraud is the  imposition of a massive and bewildering array of new taxes.  Obviously it is plain to see how this is in the interest of governments and banks, particularly if such taxes are imposed on an individual level.


Carbon Insurance For Your Car May Be Down The Road [Green Gas Taxes at Pumps] by Terry Tamminen (cnbc.com) - Nov. 13, 2009.

"A carbon insurance premium could easily be included in such a gas pump surcharge so drivers pay the true cost of operating their vehicles in terms of all relevant risks, including their fair share of creating both fender benders and climate change collisions."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33906802

 
Carbon ration account for all proposed by Environment Agency by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 9, 2009.


"Everyone should be given an annual carbon ration and face financial penalties if they exceed it, under a proposal by the Environment Agency"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6909046.ece

 

 

 

 

Global Warming and Personal Autonomy

Selling your house? It could be a green crime

Queensland’s flailing government has now made it a crime to sell your house without first doing a big green audit: 

QUEENSLANDERS selling their homes will soon have to complete a 56-point questionnaire detailing the property’s environmental credentials

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime

 

 

 

Global Warming and Forced Austerity

The UN has advocated funding global birth control initiatives [read: 'population security'] in order to 'reduce CO2 emissions'.  Of course now we know the connection between CO2 and temperatures is based on fabricated data . . .   So where does that leave such UN population initiatives?

 
UN says Birth control the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [UN Wants More Abortions and Sterilizations to cut Co2] by Ben Webster (timesonline.co.uk) - Nov. 19, 2009.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6922245.ece

 

The population control objectives of the global warming fraud do not end there. Andrew Revkin, an NYT correspondent identified in the leaked CRU emails exhibiting a very cozy relationship with the corrupt scientists, advocates restrictions on the number of children couples are permitted to have via the issuance of 'carbon credits'. This is similar to what was advocated by Obama's chief science advisor John Holdren in his book Ecoscience.  There is a political agenda behind global warming.



"Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin. “So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=55667

 

The above is significant because Revkin is identified in the leaked emails corresponding with the corrupt Climate Research Unit (CRU) and has written many pro-global warming articles for the New York Times.

 

 

 

Global Warming and Systemic Financial Fraud

 

Where would we be in a Zerohedge article without mention of the fraudsters at Goldman Sachs.  No doubt they are present in almost every evil or fraudulent enterprise known to man and global warming is no exception.  Certainly these charlatans plan on making billions trading hallucinated carbon credits on Maurice Strong's Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

 

Al Gore's "Carbon Trading" Scam Reeks of Who Else? Goldman

http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/05/al-gores-carbon-trading-scam-reeks-of.html

 

 


 

 

 

These examples illustrate how the global warming fraud is used to push a far-reaching political agenda -- an agenda born out of the unholy fusion of governments , banks, and corrupt scientists. But let us consider now the content of the leaked emails.

 

 
Scientific corruption at the highest levels:

 

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH nd N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.


Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

source: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7810


Obviously the above email speaks for itself. Despite the glaringly obvious fraud, Phil Jones and his collaborators across the world would have you believe that "trick" and "hiding the decline" are simply normal procedures in any scientific laboratory. The FORTRAN source code tells a different story.

 

 


Climate Research Unit FORTRAN code backs up claims of fraud and corruption

Neal from Climate Audit writes:

"People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples [of] bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:"

 


function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

;

 

"Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result."

-Anthony Watts, Meteorologist

 

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/

 

 

 

Discussion

The source code above shows that the scientists involved manipulated their data in order to achieve a predetermined outcome. This is fraud, plain and simple. What is worse is these scientists also deliberately deleted the paper trail showing their research was fraudulent when the FOA requests arrived. This is criminal activity at the highest levels, and these people should be investigated and prosecuted. The massive amounts of funding they were provided with was used to lie to the public , in order to achieve the objectives of the UN and its affiliated think tanks, whether these scientists were aware of the implication of their corruption or not. The point is these entire 'climate change' claims need to be thrown in the trash heap and evaluated by competent scientists without financial or political interests in the outcome of their research.  

And above all, the UN's Copenhagen treaty for dramatic forced austerity and international political control should be exposed for the vicious and cynical hoax it actually is.  Copenhagen is the culmination of these fraudulent policies. National sovereignty will once again be reduced under a treaty conceived and funded by think tanks and international banks. Massive taxes will be imposed. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan will make billions trading hallucinated carbon credits. Orwellian state policies for tracking individuals and interfering in personal autonomy will become acceptable under the pretext of 'stopping climate change', despite the entire rationale being fraudulent. Monopolistic international finance capital and the billionaire elitists behind it believe they are about to achieve another victory over the unwashed masses with the Copenhagen treaty.

The true political objective behind global warming was proven beyond a doubt in the Club of Rome publication The First Global Revolution. Keep in mind Al Gore is a member of this elitist group of policymakers, and even chaired a full Club of Rome meeting in Washington DC in 1997. 

 


"“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."


-Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991.



We should understand that the international political agenda underlying the falsified global warming scandal is, at its core, an ideology of corrupt banks and politicians intent on framing humanity as the enemy , in order to achieve purposes of social control.  Thus, it is no surprise that the 'science' behind global warming has been exposed as fraudulent.



For in-depth coverage of this growing scandal, see:

http://wattsupwiththat.com

http://smalldeadanimals.com

http://climateaudit.org

 


You can download the full copy of the leaked documents and source code here:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009 



4.533335
Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (15 votes)



by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 16:53
#141071

Mayhem... thanks for the great work and keep the pressure up on these criminals. Yes they are criminals if you merely apply the laws that are aleady on the books...

People tend to forget this since they believe they are merely attempting to save the planet... more like saving the $30 billion in global warming research grants since the early 90's... just sayin'...

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:01
#141075

If these cynical criminals in world policy bodies actually cared about the environment, they would ban Monsanto terminator seeds.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:18
#141103

Mayhem...

I would seed and harvest 4,000 acres a year (wheat, canola, soybean, oats in rotation) with my cousin in Manitoba each year until he sold the farm this spring.

Seed issues loom large with all the local farmers. In an escalating "Yield War" we require planting the highest yielding, drought tolerant, and fastest growing strains of GMO seed around just to survive. Once you do however you must sign contracts to "deliver" the crop back to them at harvest. You don't even own your own crop.

The "terminator seed is the "Holy Grail" of agricultural bioengineering. Forget about all the GMO issues with splicing 'pesticide' and even animal genes into your food crops... with the literal control over the ability of the planet to feed itself there will certainly be dark days ahead for all.

The masses are sleepwalking into uncharted territory here... will they ever wake up before it's too late?

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:44
#141240

ZerOhead,

Could you write more on this topic? Perhaps even submit a piece to ZH for posting as a "Contributor"? Your real world knowledge of what we are all facing would be valuable (and as it also has economic implications would be appropriate for the site). In a nutshell, if you could write on how this impacted your own farming, what farmers in general face, how it impacts you from a profit/loss standpoint, and what the environmental considerations are. There is a lot of alarmist writing out there, but word from someone who truly knows would be useful in letting us know just how alarmed we should be. I fear we should be quite alarmed, but reserve final judgement.

by tip e. canoe
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:29
#141299

anonymouse, while awaiting zerohead's response, try this for anecdotal accounts from farmers:

http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/11/worst-harvest-season-ever-seen.html

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:14
#141399

I could but my problem is that I wouldn't know how to stop once I got started.

I could rant on about quality and performance issues with the GMO seed that we've had delivered itself... (we've had some huge 'insurance' payouts) to the operational clusterfucks that occur when you are contracted to deliver to only one specific elevator during harvest... (you usually don't have enough bin storage to store your entire crop so you have to take it to the elevator.

Often the elevator you are contractually required to deliver to is full until the next train of grain cars arrive to clean it out. So you are stuck with 3 combine harvesters ($300/hr operating cost each), one grain cart and four or five trucks and 8 guys sitting idle while your crop is exposed to the inevitable rain and weather that diminishes the grade quality and $$ faster than you can say Monsanto.

(Hint... we just usually take that days harvest to another elevator and say nothing... and you think you are buying GMO free... see I can't really tell you what goes on until the statute of limitations expire... 2 years I think.)

Then there are the issues about the nature of what we doing by eliminating much of the natural biodiversity in the strains themselves... and yes contamination through crosspollination is a threat... but only for those who clean their own seed. Most buy the newest "hot" seed anyway... you can't afford to give away yield.

If there is a real desire here to know about what goes on in the business I'm sure my cousin will be happy to oblige you with the nightmares... he's currently in the Netherlands or France nursing his peptic ulcers...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:29
#141476

How does this sound. There are no "masses". There are, however, a lot of people, in a lot of professions, and each profession requires so much specialized knowledge today that if you are in one profession, you really don't have time to find out what is going on in the other professions. But the Masters have many think tanks and the think tanks have many computers, and they can crank out new programs aimed at steering every profession toward imposing more shackles on the citizenry. Your example may be farming, where the new program is genetically altered seeds, which do not reproduce, therefore making farmers share-croppers even if they own their own land. Here is another example: in simple land ownership, two new programs are "Low Impact Development" and "Surface and Groundwater Protection". These two thought is okay, but the new programs require you (including you a simple homeowner) to get a Landscape Architect to design, and the local government to permit, anything you do to your own property. I bet everyone on this board can name some new program in his particular profession that is being pushed down from he knows not where, and which will spy on, require permits of, and tax his customers. I don't know what the solution is, but it seems that we cannot wait for "the masses" to understand what is going on, but rather each profession must band together and fight the new programs being pushed at it. So everyone has a job to do.

P.S. In the USA, fighting such regulations is one thing the Republicans preach, while they actually impose just as much new government regulation as the Democrats. Not that I trust those guys either. I trust neither. Truly, there seems to be really only one party, and "we control all sides".

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 07:57
#141771

excellent post

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:47
#142057

A bit of fun.
"Hide the Decline"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk

by TumblingDice
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 07:57
#141770

I agree.

Zerohead, I would very much appreceite it if you shared more of your knowledge in this subject in the sort of an expanded article or comment. This is a matter of extreme importance and your education of this forum could prove invaluable.

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:07
#142670

Precarious situation of global food supply due to deterioration of quality farmland and potential inability of access to farm credit due to credit/future currency crisises are the number one and two bullets IMO right now...

There hasn't been many years with an increase in grain inventories in case anyone cared to notice... if you want I can do something... but who do I contact?

by tip e. canoe
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:48
#141245

not to mention the farmers that choose not to use terminator seeds but whose fields are contaminated by stray airbornes and who are then are visited by monsanto's legal jackboots for patent infringement.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:11
#141405

It does occaisionally occur through pollen contamination (usually on the outside of the fields) however (sorry guys) most farmers just don't wish to pay. If you are selling a GMO-free certified crop however you are screwed... and I think it would be difficult to sue for the losses... hey... the wind blows right?

by tip e. canoe
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:17
#141662

this is really interesting stuff zero...thanks for sharing.

 

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:12
#141778

"most farmers just don't wish to pay"

Why should they, just because some patent clerk granted crazed monopolists power to call in murderous thugs.

They are being Americans, preserving their livelihood and their culture, as is their Right.

by Hephasteus
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 09:22
#141892

You can get a patent for any retarded thing that is as common in the collective conciousness as water is in the ocean if you simply have a big enough army of assertive lawyers, bribers and rhetorik speakers.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7423643.html

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:10
#142310

Agreed. (mostly)

by Gilgamesh
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:41
#141147

You probably saw the news (by the stock price), but if not:

Origin Agritech Announces Final Approval of World's First Genetically Modified Phytase Corn

China’s First Transgenic Corn Introduces the Next Generation of Agricultural Products

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Origin-Agritech-Announces-bw-2754575064.html?x=0&.v=1

by tip e. canoe
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:51
#141252

"Phytase is currently used as an additive in animal feed to breakdown phytic acid in corn, which holds 60% of the phosphorus in corn. Phytase increases phosphorus absorption in animals by 60%. Phosphorus is an essential element for the growth and development of all animals, and plays key roles in skeletal structure and in vital metabolic pathways."

holy glowing cowshit, batman

by _Biggs_
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:34
#141578

Thanks Gilgamesh.  The phosphorus issue is huge as most large livestock producers are limited on how much phosphorus can be applied to land via manure.  Phytase has become an important tool limiting phosphorus entering into waterways...see "dead zone, Mississippi Delta."  Pretty much everyone I know in production uses it from cattle to hogs to poultry, etc.

by tip e. canoe
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:25
#141666

so in effect this would make the phosphorus in the corn more available to the livestock, thereby requiring less phosphorus to be applied, yes?

is this why farmers are using manure to provide phosphorus right now, cuz the cows are crapping most of it out?

by Hephasteus
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:12
#141279

Phospherous weapons using pieces of slime trash scum.

by Ragnarok
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:16
#141284

Please don't let this story die.  I don't give a shit if the dollar goes to zero as long as I have my freedom.

by bonddude
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:51
#141323

"Matt Ta ib bi...white courtesy telephone Please !

Matt Ta ib bi..."

What do

a g ore

o bama

h p aulson

g o ld man sux

have in common?

why the c hic ago cl im ate  e x change of course ;-)

by bob resurrected
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:07
#141456

Slippery saviors (Climate Scientists) may be scanned squirming here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:37
#141530

I read somewhere the data was posted on a Russian hacker site but the data was probably released by an insider, maybe someone who had to work on the awful source code . The data was well-organized, perhaps to respond to a Freedom of Information request.
Anyone else with info?

by snorkeler
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 13:47
#142274

Mayhem, you just hit the sweet spot there. There is no telling what food grown with these seeds is going to do to people long term. But there are some hints.

 

http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2009/05/18/watch-the-world-according-to-monsanto-online-for-free/

 

"The World According to Monsanto"

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:39
#141531

Sure, but it's a small price to pay to get World Gov't by the best and brightest. And an end to all the bickering of the world's nations as force is used to bring them into line with the eco-principles.
Eggs/omelettes. Just sayin'....

by bugs_
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:13
#141087

Mayhem thanks for another article on this.

The liberated files were actually 168MB - (65MB compressed).

by Commander Cody
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:10
#141093

Agree 100% and have done so since the climate change supporters first spouted their filth.  Hang 'em high.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:27
#141125

And hang them often...

The bastards deleted... yes deleted raw climate data that they alone were in posession of.... data that was collected with public funds. They did this so no-one could reconstruct the graphs that they produced for the IPCC propaganda machine... why???

Because their graphs and conclusions are fraudulent... even they admit so amongst themselves... I know your mother told you it's not nice to read someone elses mail but please read the Emails people...

And this is what passes for science today???

Yes Al Gore... the debate is over isn't it?

by Daedal
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:18
#141107

Glad to see the MSM is all over this. </que crickets>

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:33
#141130

The silence is not only deafening... it's  astounding.

The Wall Street Journal actually had the guts to cover this issue... I'll post the article below...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:26
#141413

 

I really don't have time to read them all Margin Call... however since you did bring up the veritable New York Times... bastion of unbiased information that it is...

Why don't you reread the NYT article again... if you pay close attention you will see it is actually a damage control piece... or am I a tard? (I could be... heck sometimes I am even...)

Just askin'...

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatewire-stolen-e-mails-sharpen-a-brawl-between-clima-19517.html

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:50
#141445

The NYT piece is written by completely non-biased reporter Andrew Revkin, who is NOT specifically mentioned by name in the released emails, and who does NOT have a cozy relationship with climate fraudsters like Micheal Mann. (Please note that "NOT" is an ironic intensifier, and is a "trick" I use to "hide the" contempt I feel.)

by Margin Call
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:54
#141447

I'm not supporting the viewpoint put forward in any one of the articles, rather responding to overheated claims made above that there is mainstream media silence on this issue. Which, of course, is blatantly untrue. This story is all over the place. Story tone will of course reflect editorial slant of source (notice I also included Fox, National Post in there and so forth).

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:49
#141495

The ABC article however seems balanced...

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:36
#141486

Oh hey and the from the Telegraph article....

"But the scientific establishment remains united in the view that the documents reveal no smoking gun to manipulate data, and point out that the figures produced by the unit tally with two other major international studies."

Sounds like more damage control to me since they didn't even present what was actually in the emails...

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:47
#141490

From the Gaurdian... a small (non-elaborated)segment of an email followed by lengthy defenses

Damage control again Margin Call...

"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

If by "trick" they mean a clever way to disguise a cooling trend that does much to discredit the AGW thesis so that we mortals won't be confused by the facts...

Anyway there is nothing that I can do for ya except ask you to please read the emails...

by Daedal
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:43
#141491

Margin call,

You can't be serious. I opened each and every link. Most of them posed the findings as a question, make excuses, most of them are not even mainstream, and even Foxnews was posted in the OPINION section. I knew the second Obama bowed in front of the Emperor of Japan, and yet I have to scower obscure 'news' postings to find some apologetic articles on the issue? This is worse than watergate, this 'global warming' nonsense has permeated every aspect of civilization, it is being hailed as the biggest issue facing mankind, and it has come to light that the evidence supporting such claims has been fabricated. Where's the outrage? This should be frontpage of every major publication! The links you provided simply impact the point I made earlier; no MSM coverage of the issue. Crickets, indeed!

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:03
#141501

Belief is Belief Daedal... it doen't require facts...

It's like trying to convince someone their religion is wrong... even when clearly all religions can't be right.

Global Warming is a religion. The physics don't support more than a .5 degree celsius increase from a co2 doubling... thats a fact. The rest is empty speculation and Nintendo games...

 

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:25
#141795

Thereis overwhelming pressure to dance for the Masters,
now we science $cience is not done by pure minded humanists, but rather by crass opportunists, a revelation!

The people be damned. As w/obamacare, the vampire squids will do as vampire squids do. To expect balance, is to believe in fairies.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:24
#141210

Even worse - they've stepped up the hysteria and the "We must ACT NOW!!!"

I want to personally go up to each one of them and just shake them until they snap out of it and come to their senses.

by Hephasteus
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:23
#141292

You're a really nice person. I was thinking more along the lines of hammering thier computers into thier buttholes with a jack hammer. But I like power tools. And ending senseless suffering in dramatic fashions.

by aldousd
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:41
#141808

Wallstreetpro2 is that you?

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:22
#141117

i'm much relieved ... this explains why the antarctic and greenland ice shelves have been collapsing, worldwide glaciers have been retreating, and we're looking towards opening the northwest passage for shipping.

at least sea levels aren't rising and oceans aren't increasing in acidity or anything. then i'd be worried.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:57
#141151

Here's the global sea ice anomallies since 1979... from government sources derived from satellite observations at that... maybe someone has been oh... lying to you perhaps?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

And did you see that polar bears are now falling from the sky... you forgot that one... (BTW... polar bear populations are UP from 8,000 - 10,000 in the 1960's to 20,000 to 25,000 today...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxis7Y1ikIQ&feature=player_embedded#

The above video is a must-see and captures the hysteria that is used to sell anthropogenic global warming dogma... WAKE THE FREAK UP people!!!

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:10
#141187

i think this chart from the very same source serves your argument a little better as it shows something of a [potential] trend reversal --

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

-- but this one is less 'helpful' or encouraging --

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

if we're actually talking about 'sea ice' ... and i haven't checked to see exactly what qualifies as 'sea' ice, then it probably doesn't include things like the greenland or antarctic ice sheets. north polar ice is in fact sea ice and when melted adds very little to sea levels. greenland ice sheets and much of the antarctic ice isn't [or shouldn't be considered to be] 'sea ice' as its actually on the land. when it melts the entirety of the ice mass is added to the water levels.

i'm not going to go anywhere near saying that you and the hackers are wrong and that there aren't conspiracists who want to drive a climate change agenda. and we've certainly seen an awful lot of nonsense from the folks on the other side, backed by the likes of big oil, who do everything they can to obfuscate the facts. all i'm saying is that there are clear, incontrovertible, verifiable changes taking place wrt to things like icemelt that can't and shouldn't be ignored.

there are obviously forces at work with a vested interest in encouraging clearly evil things like cap and trade. there are obviously forces at work with a vested interest in maintaining a very profitable status quo. somewhere in between is the truth of the matter. i confess ... i have a weakness when it comes to the status quo ... it hasn't served [many of] us very well so far.

by tip e. canoe
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:02
#141261

"verifiable changes taking place wrt to things like icemelt that can't and shouldn't be ignored."  and neither should similar things like icemelt happening on mars.

please note that i personally am on your side of the fence wrt status quo.  however, i also choose to believe that being forced to decide between 2 false choices both built upon lies, deceit, fear & need to control is actually what the status quo really is.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:27
#141296

alas, i couldn't agree with you more. its a very sad state of affairs. i candidly don't know what to think any more about anything. all i see is deceit from every quarter.

i'm no ideologue and i prefer to try to arrive at conclusions based on sound rational analysis but these days almost nothing is what it seems.

i'd like to think that when when there are so many disparate sources who appear to be in agreement that perhaps there is some shred of truth to what they're saying. as to your last sentence about lies, deceit, fear and the status quo, i certainly can't argue the point with you.

now, if you'll excuse me, i need to go find some hammers and drop them. i feel the sudden need to validate the existence of gravity.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:45
#141441

Agree with deep sadness. Can not trust your own government.Bankers are liars along with there financial buddies. Climate change is a political football along with peek oil, unemployment, inflation etc etc etc. Everything you are told is manipulated and deceptive. George Orwells 1984 mightt be a few years out, but its here.
Terry.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:28
#141508

Tell me exactly where I am wrong and I will listen and perhaps even change my mind...

What I  really find disengenous about your link to that cryosphere graph is that can you tell me exactly how they knew with such precision without satellite data and a monitoring system to get area calculations of sea ice extent from 1900... not a lot of boats up there then buddy... and it looks solidly frozen in 1944 when the St. Roch sailed straight through... hmmmm... and then the series ends in the minimum year... why not 2009 rather than 2007? Oh I know... the ice is recovering...

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

Check out the FOR REAL satellite data from the same site my friend... notice anything unusual?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Looks a little different from the stuff that they could estimate to leave some people with the perception that the ice is melting doesn't it? And the strong polar vortex as mentioned earlier is responsible for those lower years... not melting.

Really... just check it again... same source... same webpage and please tell me again how they got those early 1900's measurements will ya... guessing perhaps? Perhaps I is just too stupid to understand this stuff... just sayin'

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:23
#141665

There is an obvious choice open tall all in this, you either look at the raw data yourself or you allow scientists to anaylse it for you. What you don't do is cherry pick the raw data to critique the science.

Sea Ice extent a case in point:

In case you didn't know the Antarctic is very cold, and has a big landmass.
Hence sea ice extent has changed little:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg

However the north pole is mostly ice covered ocean much more influenced by currents and sea temp:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg

This is the same data you posted before but showing the north and south pole contributions. The north pole data looks disturbing.

Not to make a joke but this is all academic, another 5 years from now , in the middle of the next solar maximum, climate change scepticism will be seen as quaint.

I expected better from zerohedge respondants, most responders here are sheeple (your own response is much much better! looking at actual data), claiming its bullshit from listening to all the vested interests in keeping things going as they are.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:48
#141822

You are creepy, dudette.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:09
#141180

 "and we're looking towards opening the northwest passage for shipping."

It never ceases to amaze me how truly stupid people can be... did you never learn anything in school? The northwest passage has been open many times in the past... this tiny boat below did it twice in the 1940's... where was global warming then????..... Duh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:22
#141206

ok ... point for you ... i misspoke. while i don't think an icebreaker is a really good example for you to cite, its not like the northwest passage can't be navigated at all. it can't be safely navigated on a regular basis and certainly not on a year-round schedule.

put another way ... its unlikely that we'd see a whole lot of commercial shipping via the northwest passage, certainly not during the arctic winter, unless a considerable amount of melting were to take place.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:10
#141276

And a considerable amount of melting happened since the last ice age. There was a lot less ice in the medieval warming period. More ice,less ice it's called change, it happens to everyone,everything, no matter what! Why are you so afraid of something you can do nothing about?

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:57
#141420

WOODEN HULLED "ICE BREAKER" WITH SAILS?????

You are shitting me right? Look at the picture again... christ!!!

And was the passage open this year (2009) ????

Right!

by I need more cowbell
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:13
#141192

Ah, at least one useful idiot shows up, full to his craw with algore spew but loving the taste so fucking much... Please sir may I have more?

And we wonder why the BIG LIE ( ZH- maybe we need to tabulate all the current BIG LIES, it's getting hard to keep track ) can possibly be kept alive, no thrive, even with the blogosphere and other alternative media sources shining the light of truth on them daily, relentlessly. The truth truly is out there; the emperor actually has no clothes.

It's all the useful idiots who through either self-loathing, ignorance, apathy, or birth-bequeathed stupidity, are the willing fodder for the oligarchy's deceipt.

 

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:24
#141519

This doesn't answer the question of the anthropogenicity of any global warming. The glaciers in New Zealand have been shrinking since they were first measured two centuries ago.

by Gunther
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 07:36
#141754

Too early of a starting point.

In a first-year biology book for university I read few years ago that a glacier in Northern Canada is shrinking since the 1750's or so.

Too early again.

by Gilgamesh
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:28
#141128

Good on you for reminding everyone about the 'man' behind the curtain of global warming.  But don't forget to mention Morgan along with Goldman.  They have their private hands in every piece of the charade, not just CCX.

by Rollerball
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:32
#141132

Gore was a fraud the moment he conceded the election to Diebold.  He's a NWO bitch, just like mommy and daddy Clinton.

by Margin Call
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:37
#141137

Ah, I was wondering when this story would show up on the ZH marquis.

As for all the conspiracy theories about climate change being some tool for global government domination, I can think of far less complex and disruptive ways from a government POV to increase control and surveillance. Like invoking "national security" and putting CCTV cameras all over the place, for one. Or massive databases to sift through all electronic communication. 

I mean, if climate change is such a great tool for gov't domination, why is every government doing their darnest to do absolutely nothing substantial about it? 

Just sayin'.

by Gilgamesh
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:46
#141155

Yes, all these conspiracy theories are being shot down right-and-left...  When will one bit of evidence ever come out?

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:55
#141162

God help your clients if you are dispensing financial advice whilst being utterly incapable of understanding materials such as these emails and data. What part of destroying evidence, falsifying data, stiffing FOI requests, libeling critics and marginalizing/silencing dissent do you not understand?

by Herd Redirectio...
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 05:03
#141697

Gil was giving you the heavy dosage of sarcasm. 

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:02
#141170

They are about to sign a treaty in Copenhagen that will make it impossible to sell your house unless it meets certain 'green' standards set by these international bodies.  This is just one of many implications.

 

I think that alone makes this issue pretty significant , as it represents a destruction of national sovereignty was well as personal autonomy.

 

Selling your house? It could be a green crime

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime

by demsco
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:07
#141345

BTW, as always nice work I enjoy reading your material on a regualr basis. It takes a lot to make an old sick man like me think, but you do the trick.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:35
#141376

Andrew Bolt is an uber rightwing journalist and self-confessed climate change denier employed by Rupert Murdoch, so a little perspective please. The simple facts are Australia is in the grip of its worst ever drought, we're having midsummer temperatures in Spring and increasingly severe bushfires. That short-term analysis doesn't mean anything in long run. But looking at the glacial record we can see the ice retreating. The question is this: What do you want to die of? On our current trajectory we're heading as a globe for a major dose of the unsustainable, including:
Overpopulation, leading to increased consumption which increases:
Resource depletion
Water shortage
Food shortage
Pollution of air & ground water
Biodiversity loss leading to a breakdown in the food chain

Which all lead to geo-political struggle, more war and war profiteering, a lower standard of living and a reduced ability to deal with the non-linear increase in these problems as time goes by.

So you choose...the problem isn't just climate change real or no, its the fact our way of life is unsustainable on this planet. So stop yelling conspiracy and go do something useful like reduce your footprint so we have more time to deal with the total shitfest we're digging ourselves further and further into.

Cap & Trade is a nightmare,

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:59
#141598

"So stop yelling conspiracy and go do something useful like reduce your footprint so we have more time to deal with the total shitfest we're digging ourselves further and further into."

5 gold Maple Leafs says most of the posters on this board are more environmentally conscious than any Greenshirt fascist. So you can take your pompous directive and shove it.

"Conspiracy" isn't the point, nor the lame rejoinder about "right-wing hacks employed by Rupert Murdoch." The point is that those who read and participate on ZeroHedge regularly DO NOT like being lied to. When correspondance from the scientists who have been promoting the "Climate Change Will Kill Us All!" theory show that they have been involved in deliberate obfuscation, data manipulation, deflection, lack of transparency, and fraud in the same way that the Fed, the banksters, or any government organization has, what the hell do you expect people here to say? "Oh, but the science is settled!" "There's a consensus!" "Peer review!!!"

If you honestly believe this was going to be the reaction, you clearly don't understand this site, which is dedicated to questioning the status quo and issues that the oligarchs consider "settled." Particularly those in a discipline who should not, IN PRINCIPLE, begin with a conclusion and accept only data that fits that conclusion, which these "scientists" clearly did.

by Anonymous
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 09:14
#143048

Mate, Andrew Bolt calls a spade a spade. No political correctness in his column! Go Andrew Bolt!

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:39
#141380

You may not be able to sell your house unless you comply with the apparatschicks but you can certainly burn it to the ground, walk away from the illegitimate shyster bank debt and flip the bird.

It's called the Wild West for a reason.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:58
#142427

I may be missing something re: the Andrew Bolt article but AFAICS there was nothing in the Queensland law that would even portend a prohibition on selling non-green homes. AFAICS Queensland has enacted a law to require home sellers to provide information to prospective buyers, not to limit the sale of a home in any manner. Since a free and immediate flow of information is necessary for efficient markets, I would think ZHers would support this law. Are informed consumers only desirable in certain contexts?

by Rollerball
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:12
#141190

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:52
#141325

You just answered your own question. Climate change is not about Global Warming! WAKE UP!! It is precisely that. (a gov't tool for domination) That is why nothing is being done. Besides you can't do something about somethig that does not exist.

Ever hear of the Patriot Act. They are already sifting through the data bases. Pull up to any inner section in any medium sized city in America and look around. The cameras are already here! As soon as everyone is broke and starving they will come and take the guns away. It's already happened in New York city and Chicago. The only people allowed to own a handgun in Chicago are the corrupt politicians.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:30
#141422

Carbon trading and green tech are (were?) supposed to bring about the next bubble to keep the US dollar from collapsing.

A "successful" Copenhagen treaty will also bring about global governance and (they think) population reduction, two of the top concerns of our Globalist Overlords.

The most bothersome thing (to me) about the whole "carbon is the enemy" approach to environmentalism (besides the bogosity) is that it presumes the presence of a human being on this planet is a NEGATIVE that ought to be compensated for somehow. A very misanthropic worldview. We could go about global population management and environmental stewardship in positive, humanity-affirming ways instead, but . . . BAH don't get me started. Nobody cares what I think.

by tip e. canoe
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:41
#141675

"A very misanthropic worldview. We could go about global population management and environmental stewardship in positive, humanity-affirming ways"

i care what u think and think u should say this more.
imo, this is the core issue of the entire kit-and-kaboodle.

the challenge now is how to communicate this when the control freaks are hijacking the issue.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 09:03
#141852

We know Maurice Strong began pushing carbon dioxide as a pollutant in 1988, long before any "global warming" scam came along. GW is a convenience to harness carbon dioxide reduction as a control tool.

Similarly, DuPont pushed the Ozone Layer scam to terminate freon, as its patent had run. Voila, DuPont has a new patented refrigerant waiting in the wing. Yup, yup, we's dumb.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:39
#141143

I wouldn't be exaggerating the total number of times I've heard this mentioned in the MSM, local news (always shit), local or national papers... ZERO

An entirely new market place would be established under this agenda... we're talking carbon here. What single thing in your daily existence did not generate some sort of emissions? Nothing. Thats because everything does and some people wanted to somehow cash in on it.

Groups, organizations, companies, countries fail when their corruption and greed becomes their sole purpose to exist. What happens when this starts happening globally?

by Rainman
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:34
#141305

It's already international. Global carbon credits are sold from India and China and etcetras into the internationally subsidized market. It's become a global welfare system off the back of the global warming bullshit.

Reminds me of an old saying : " Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see and you'll always be well informed ".

by Gilgamesh
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 10:00
#141954

Australia just passed a nice, fat, multi-billion dollar deal on this.

Talk about timing.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:41
#141146

It's a little disappointing to see people on what I'd consider a pretty educated blog lapping up a handful of released e-mails and completely disregarding the fact that hundreds of scientists around the world find the research still strongly in favor of anthropogenic global warming. In fact, if you examine Dr. Ball's academic record, he's published nothing of note refuting this theory - just talked it up on Fox News.

Check this out for a more enlightening perspective on this topic: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/, and I encourage everyone to actually read the papers cited in this.

by docj
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:44
#141239

The research they're willing to go public with, at least.

The Science is settled?  Seems that the math isn't even settled.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:22
#141290

Yeah, the one thing the loons here always ignore is the melting glaciers and polar caps.

It's kind of hard to ignore that, but they do. But it will catch up with us all, unfortunately.

You can't fake Mother Nature, but a lot of people do try.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:03
#141341

Sure am glad your God Mother nature melted the last ice age!

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:25
#142106

Don't try to reason with moonbats who know almost nothing about some subject area (climate science), but somehow know everything about it. And lack the logical grounding to see that an incident of fraud does not "debunk" a matter both scientifically settled (except to Glenn Beck, maybe) and common sense (the north pole is melting, south sea islands are disappearing under the waves, etc -- sorry, the earth is not flat).

I mean, the financial insights here are excellent, but then we see Mr Mayhem and the chorus of moonbats suddenly sprout hair and start baying at the moon.

Clearly, not a lot of climate science background on this site, though it does not seem to restrain the gratuitous climate science opinion.

by dnarby
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:52
#141326

I'll see your pathetic hundreds of scientists and raise you 31,000.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

by DaveyJones
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:08
#142025

As Rainman said, be skeptical of everything you read:

 

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine held a press conference this morning to announce that 31,000 "scientists" have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming.

According to OISM officials, the purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that "the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong."

So what does it take to be included among the 31,000 "experts" on the petition? Well, according to the OISM criteria, any undergraduate science degree will do just fine. Bet you never thought that BS you earned 20 years ago made you a qualified climatologist. Congratulations!

OISM also wants to let you know that 9,021 of the signers hold PhDs. They don't specify what the doctorates are in, but they repeat that figure quite a bit, as if it means something. Since the group was nice enough to list all 31,000 signers, including the dead people, let's take a look at the qualifications of three randomly-selected "climate experts."

  • W. Kline Bolton, M.D. is a professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.
  • Zhonggang Zeng is one of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."
  • Hub Hougland is a dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.
by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:21
#142332

Oh christ not another one!!!

And the head of the fucking IPCC is an Indian railroad engineer... check it out...

http://development.asia/issue01/img/cover01-01.jpg

And that makes him a climate expert how exactly?

by DaveyJones
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:08
#142837

Apples and oranges. 

 

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[4] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature."

The 30 some odd thousand signatures were posing as relevant scientists.

 

by ZerOhead
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 17:13
#143460

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself.

Of course it doesn't Davey that way they avoid getting caught up in the fraud.

So it doesn't trouble you that the IPCC... remember the lead climate agency on the planet does not have a climatologist at its head???

That's plain frightenening Davey... listen kid the reason I'm taking this time is that so 5 years or so from now when the MSM "breaks" this story... your wife and kids and the neighbors won't laugh at you for being an AGW "gasser".

BTW read the emails sometime and please get back to me I'm about 1/4 of the way through all of them now and the postings at the climate sites are absolutely hilarious.

 

by DaveyJones
on Fri, 11/27/2009 - 22:21
#144583

The physics are pretty simple. CO2 reflects infrared. The planet radiates heat as light from the Sun bounces off of it. More CO2 in the atmosphere, more radiated heat stays down here and less flies out to space. What part of the hacked files changes physics? Just might have something to do with folks predicting this effect a long time ago. Kinda strange that some of the same people who freak out that we've taken out and burned up half of the stuff that runs our world's industry, transportation, and economy think its retarded (and a conspiracy) to suggest that it might affect our atmosphere. When exactly in the history of the earth have we taken out stuff that took millions of years to form and thrown half of it's burned up product up in the air? You're right, how immature, impractical, illogical and unscientific to suggest an effect.  

by fluorideintapwa...
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:02
#141173

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT VICTORY FOR

THE  TRUTH MOVEMENT. 

DEFEAT  DARTH GORE

by fluorideintapwa...
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:04
#141176

DEFEAT  THE   CARBON  WHORES  !!

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:21
#141203

To defeat the Carbon Whores we need to connect Jamie Dimon and GS to this through the carbon credits scam before B.O. throws Tim under the bus and puts J.D. in at treasury.

Tyler!, Marla!, how about making this a top of the page gray box with daily updates? Surly somebody out there knows how to nail GS and J.D. with some of this filth.

by JohnKing
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:19
#141287

B.O is in on the whole thing, do you really think that they don't know this global warming B.S. is a scam? Been outside lately?

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:06
#141178

Apocalypse Now

Project Mayhem, this is the best written, most succint, and most important post I have ever read. There it is in black and white - tyranny when the light of truth shines on the lies. We must stop tyranny at all costs.

Obamas nobel peace prize was a down payment on the copenhagen treaty, a bribe to influence his decision. World tyranny being sold under the guise of peace or a fear of the unknown, whether real or promulgated, is still world tyranny at heart - the opposite is freedom and liberty.

Bravo, well done. This Thanksgiving I am giving thanks for ZH, you and this piece - I am grateful to have a post so well articulated that I can send it to friends and family. Mccarthy was right, socialists/communists are among us.

by whwood75
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:10
#141186

If global warming (or climate change, if your prefer) is real, it poses an insurmountable logical dilemma to libertarian individuals who fear world government and the elitist indifference that too often comes with technocratic rule. I sympathize with these fears. I am also objective enough to know that whatever dishonesty has permeated the scientific analysis of global warming, it is not a fully contrived threat. As at least one other commenter observes, melting ice caps are in fact quite real. If a problem exists that is so great that it actually requires most of humanity to cooperate in a common cause, national (and individual) sovereignty will suffer mightily. Global warming, if real, is likely to be just such a threat. The result is that it causes the opposition to take extreme positions that are based more on political philosophy than the objective analysis of scientific inquiry.Project Mayhem's essay is very long on rhetoric and very short on any actual discussion of the scientific facts and theories of climate change which have been analyzed by many thousands of scientists. Professor Tim Ball is a long standing critic of the mainstream theories of global warming who indeed has made something of a career out of his positions. As such, he is certainly no more objective (and perhaps less so) than the scientists whose e-mails were hacked. In this case real reporting would use objective (i.e., non-aligned) analysts to examine specific leaked e-mails to demonstrate a pattern of deceit and obfuscation. But as our essayists' name suggests, that wouldn't promote mayhem; instead it might actually further an important discussion about a threat which, if real, requires us to face some hard political questions.

by Rollerball
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:27
#141215

It's warming all over the GALAXY!  Feel free to join the localization.

http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/galactic-global-warming...

 

 

by Apocalypse Now
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:46
#141494

Yes, I guess now Al Gore invented the internet and is now trying to save the universe from mann's global warming.  He should be a comic book character, he would like us to think he is the hero of the story but in reality is the underbelly of gotham.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 11:50
#142060

He is the excrement of the Beast he fellates.

by Steroid
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:27
#141218

Government Scientists, what an oxymoron!

by I need more cowbell
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:34
#141225

Ah, useful idiot number two makes an appearance.

- the entire notion of man-made global warming, er, man-influenced global warming, er, man-made climate change, oh fuck it, climate change ( thats the ticket: an all-encompossing term that blames man for weather. Hee hee thats good ) came from Michael Mann's computer model output that showed an alarming "hockey stick" future, i.e. drastic one-way yearly temperature increases. All this from a computer model later to be found riddled with faulty algorithims ( algore rhythems, if you prefer), and very questionable assumptions. Garbage in, garbage out.

- then, it was postulated the cause was an increase of man contributed CO2

- long story short: the hockey stick never happened. In fact, not only did temps not go up every year, since 1998 they have flattened or decreased. In science, we call that a dead theory ( projected outcome did not occur ). In science, end of story.

- CO2: of all the villians they could have postulated, this is so silly. The amount of total CO2 in the atmosphere is minute, the portion attributed to man is minute minus minute, equalling mini-minute, and the killer is, wait for it, wait for it, CO2 is not much of a heat collector in any event.

- CO2 only absorbs IR radiation in three narrow spectra. In laymans terms, as a solar panel it pretty much sucks. So the bogeyman here is a wee fraction of a man, who isn't scary anyway.

I realize many of the useful idiots won't care about fraudulent science, or illuminati world domination, or loss of freedom, because a lot of the useful idiots don't like Exxon, or the Saudis or our dependece on foreign oil.

Hey I don't either. But getting our own energy sources, our own oil, conserving energy ( and everything else ), these ideas stand on their own merit, we don't need a BIG LIE and algore and other cretins making billions while taking away our freedom.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING. It is and has always been junk science, pure politics.

by TomB
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:49
#141320

Indeed. No man-made global warming but Mann-made global warming!

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:39
#141231

That's because there is no scientific facts to refer to! IT'S ALL A BIG FRAUD!

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:49
#141241

"As at least one other commenter observes, melting ice caps are in fact quite real."

Are you basing this claim on what you know as fact or on what you have been reading in the MSM ?... please some take the time to reflect upon this question.

I will be kind with you since you have at least bothered to register here on ZH. I've been following this issue since I became interested in it as a child in the 1970's when the predictions in the National Geographic Magazine was hinting that the world was heading into another ice-age...

The low arctic sea ice levels encountered in 2007 (recovering since as you neglected to mention) were directly due to an unusually strong polar vortex that was solidly in place at that time. This was not an issue of the ice melting per se as much as being driven ashore by strong winds onto arctic shores... please peruse the government publication and information below originating from the National Snow and Ice data Centre below to educate yourself... then we can revisit this issue if you believe it is necessary... even your East Anglia CRU boys will admit as much so I don't consider this issue to be controversial...  

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/081809.html

And as for the icecaps my good friend... did you know that the ice mass of antarctica has actually been INCREASING in the last several decades while admittedly there has been a mass decrease of the Greenland icecap? Didn't think so.

by New_Meat
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 07:54
#141768

0

I've also been tracking this since noted climatologist and Nobel Prize winner (back when the Nobel actually was awarded for achievement, not potential) Carl Sagan was worried about global COOLING and not a coincidence, nuclear winter.  His prescription for global action was, yes, the same as the current prescription.  So, do the same thing to achieve opposite results?

And the data about Mars and Pluto suffering global warming?  Least-hypothesis gives us a better answer than man-caused global climate change (and Pluto doesn't even get to be a planet any more).  If I can develop an alternative explanation, then we can/should be able to test for the correct (or better) explanation.  So the second part of the fraud is "science as consensus".

Ned

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:08
#142307

Does the "unusually strong polar vortex" account for this trend too?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:08
#141270

Sooty coal emissions from China are responsible for the Arctic summer big melts...

These get reversed come the winter.

The famously disappearing glacier in Patagonia ( featured by 60 Minutes ) lies in the ash-fall of a volcano only miles away -- now active enough to 'salt' the ice!

Yet that little detail did not make it into the broadcast...

////

Carbon dioxide is plant fertilizer. NASA has long established that elevated levels will be needed for any hydroponic food cycle closure -- such as anticipated for a Mars mission.

////

AGW is a mechanism for virtually unlimited rent-seeking; nothing more, nothing less.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:12
#141285

"But as our essayists' name suggests, that wouldn't promote mayhem; instead it might actually further an important discussion about a threat which, if real, requires us to face some hard political questions."

I am hearten by your choice of inserting the words "if real" in the above sentence.

The warming from the late 70's to 2000 or so (including the record 1998 El Nino) was in fact real. Just as the cooling in the 1940's to the late 1970's was also real. The nature of the debate however is one of causality my friend... was co2 the driver of this change?... or was it natural variations in the Pacific Decadal oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which are in themselves affected by the varying levels of solar activity that occur over the years. Since even before the weak solar minimum in cycle 23... temperatures have declined globally and if cycles 24 and 25 are going to be as low as they look they are going to be... we will have continued COOLING.

It will be a great test since co2 levels will continue to rise... if you are going to install a trillion dollar carbon tax shouldn't we wait another year or two to see if AGW is as definitive as many suggest?

Wagers anyone?

Never forget this fact friend... solar output as measured by TSI (total solar irradiance) and planetary magnetic indices (amongst others) has never been higher than in the last 50 years.

How many SUV's were on the road when the Vikings were farming in Greenland? (Still can't do that today)

And please explain to me how a mature tree of this size which came from a forest of similar trees (indicating warm stable climate) came out of thousands year old glacier ice if the climate has NEVER been warmer today as your fucking CRU scientists and the IPCC claim ??????

Just asking... since I must be the idiot here.

http://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/files/2009/07/climate-change-scientist-005.jpg

Kindly pull your head out of your ass before you criticise Mayhem on this particular topic in the future.

Thanks!

 

 

by lookma
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:58
#141337

If global warming (or climate change, if your prefer) is real, it poses an insurmountable logical dilemma to libertarian individuals who fear world government and the elitist indifference that too often comes with technocratic rule.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_... I'll go down there

Many think we'd have a lot less undesired pollution and other environmental issues if for example if we had stood for property rights over the the false "public welfare" dogma of the statists. Got free market environmentalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrTsaSUFfpo

by tip e. canoe
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:48
#141679

that utube link is good food for thought.   this is along the lines of henry george, but slightly different.  i wish we would be having these discussions/debates more often actually, but so much for the 'age of reason'.

could you repost the wiki link please?  can't get it to work.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:23
#141367

Questions for Global Warming, er, Climate Change loons:

1) What is the idea Gloal temperature, and why?
2) If we are cooler than that "ideal" temperature, should we dump carbon emmissions into the atmosphere to get that temp back up? Will those who dump ALOT of carbon emissions into the atmosphere going to be rewarded for their efforts at that point?

This whole Global Warming, er, Climate Change hoax is all about $$$ and control over the peasants. Period.

Think of all the rivers, lakes, toxic dumps, invasive species and other KNOWN health hazards and pollutants that could have been cleaned up with the $$ wasted on this utter nonsense called Global Warming, er Climate Change.

by Tezcatlipoca
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:17
#141611

My thoughts exactly. Have the sheople feel all warm and fuzzy about 'reducing their carbon footprint' and make 'em pay for it through the nose and give up whatever self delusional freedom they may have left. Very neat.

Move along, nothing to see here. You are responsable for warming the planet. Stop breathing! You're not being poisoned to death with flouride, chlorine, mercury, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, hormones, penecillin etc. etc. etc.

 

by LuisvonAhn
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:18
#141197

You should see the responses given at the realclimate.org site. Which is moderated by the same bunch of hacks incriminated in the hacked emails (no pun intended). If you question anything other than AGW is 100% proven (by their own peer reviewed circle jerk) you are insulted and labeled as ignorant. Project Mayhem, your last bit info about the code is what it is all about. They have repeatedly denied FOIA request and deleted emails. Why tout science that is peer reviewed and not be forth coming with the processes the arrived at that data. Phil Jones,  director of the research unit at CRU seems to be the ring director with Michael Mann pulling the strings behind the scenes. I can't wait until they all burn in a globally induced inferno.

by Sqworl
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:28
#141219

I believe they should start with Al Gore being tried for fraud and send directly to jail with Bernie.  If Obama signs treaty in Copenhagen we should impeach him...This should also highlight the axis of evil that the UN represents.

by Hephasteus
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 06:28
#141724

God believes in gentleness. As long as it's for the right people. Harmless shoe throwers can rot in prison. But Al Gore. He deserves nothing but a strong talking to. Because sociopaths are so full of conciousness and sympathy and sensitivity that sort of thing cuts right through them.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 18:46
#141243

PM has done everyone a great service by revealing the many untruths that exist in our day. However we should be careful not to tarnish an honest person’s efforts and work, by the actions of groups who are fraudsters, banksters, or just someone who manipulates the facts for their own agenda. Please note that I do not consider the 'Giant Squid' to be an environmental group, despite the nickname.

The first thing to know is that global warming is happening on Mars also, as confirmed by a Russian Scientist. Our primary problem is the sun.

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory...
...Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. "...

The second issue to consider is what moderates this solar effect, or accentuates this problem.

Our human activity has had profound effects on our ecosystem. Richard Leakey’s 1995 book ‘The Sixth Extinction'... describes the tremendous loss of species that has been occurring on a scale that matches only 5 other Extinction Events in the history of time.

James Lovelock has developed the Gaia theory over the last 30 years. In his book ‘The Vanishing Face of Gaia’…Lovelock states he feels ‘Cap and Trade’ IS MORE ABOUT FINANCIALS than the environment. He speaks of several alternatives such as biochar. The book reviews the homeostatic nature of the earth to moderate extreme effects like fluctuations in solar heat, as well as internal effects like the mass production of CO2 which intensifies the heat.
As we destroy our environment, our ability to moderate is lost. In fact, Lovelock thinks it is too late already. Our ice caps have melted to a degree and cooled the earth for a bit, but the sun's heat remains. Weather patterns and moisture levels will change, but most noticeable of all is that our weather will become more extreme.

If the sun is heating us up-there will be little we can do to stop it, short of a space umbrella.
If we want to drop our CO2 levels - use biochar or other alternatives that are much faster and more effective.
If GS actually wants to help-perhaps they could donate all of the money to do these alternatives. These cheaper alternatives are easily within their monetary grasp...

Somewhere along the way this important issue was run over in a mad dash to manipulate it for money and glory. If greed hasn't destroyed the economy yet, it seems hell bent on burning up what mothernature has left.

Kindest Regards,
MAM

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:07
#141268

Tedious right-wing nutcase stuff -- irrelevant to markets and trading. For Gawd's sake, Tyler & Marla...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:10
#141275

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/11/04/kerry-graham-lieberman-launch-climate-change-framework/

cohn-kerry and lieberman, does it make click in somewhere in your brain?
replace oil>>>destroy economical base of the arabs, russians too in the process

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:12
#141280

Good post PM.

by spekulatn
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:23
#141291

This turd will not flush...too much $$$$ to be made saving planet errrf.

 

Well done P.M.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:07
#141457

 

"This turd will not flush..."

Priceless...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 19:42
#141317

Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:04
#141343

Project Mayhem on the evils of communism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

by demsco
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:05
#141344

Obama said he would not sign the treaty, so he claims. These emails are damning to say the least and global warming is BS all the way. However, mercury in coal burning is not, but there is no need to sign a damn treaty to fix that just add scrubbers to the stacks and problems solved, kind of. Even if you believe in global warming you should always be against your government signing any treaty that does not require Senate ratification OR you should be worried when the President and the Senate majority are both the same party.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:15
#141357

Project Mayhem on the dangers of listening to Al Gore:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:20
#141363

Really thankful that Russian computer hackers have more respect for the truth and free speech than the country that "invented" it and the money whores in the "scientific" community. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. Truth eventually prevails. Don't be swayed by fearmongerers and snake oil salesman.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:36
#141378

You guys should stick to finance.

What you've got here are roughly three sentences out of 160Mb of data. If this were a global conspiracy the evidence would be much greater in both quantity and quality.

"Getchur tin foil hats here, mister!"

by steve from virginia
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:45
#141387

I don't understand the hostility. Good grief!

I don't understand the fascination of economics/finance blogs with some AGW scientists' e-mails. The outcome is to discredit economics/finance blogs. Maybe the Fed leaked the e-mails. I wouldn't put it past them ...

You should see my e-mails. I don't usually take prisoners and have been known to use ... uh, 'bad words'.

Scientists are people too, and if you read all the comments (here?) scientists feel justifiably under siege. It's hard telling folks that what they do for fun is self destructive and for them to stop doing it. First, they won't believe you and then they get mad. All of this doesn't change either facts or outcomes. Funny thing, the scientists just want people to stop burning coal. What's the big deal?  I don't burn coal, do you?

I understand the scientists. I expend a lot of effort examining/resolving the 'peak oil' issues. On a dollar basis, the world ran out of $15 oil back in 1998. Since the vast majority of all crude oil produced/consumed in all of history cost less than $15 ... well, you all can come to your own conclusions. The outcome is very clear, there will be no more auto industry in a few years. All the cars are going to go and good riddance, frankly! Oil was far to valuable to be wasted by people mindlessly driving in circles and it is gone for good. There will be very little $100 oil produced as few can afford it, too few to support ... and auto industry, for instance.

You can see for yourselves that the auto industry is in the process of collapsing ...along with the rest of the economy which relies on that $15 oil in order to be profitable.

Now, the 'no cars' future isn't my call, so don't get mad. I don't have any authority, the cars will disappear all by themselves, along with investment banks and mortgage securities underwriters. In fact, the entire fuel shortage problem solves itself. Nobody has to do anything, nobody has to get mad ... just keep doing the same ol' same ol'.

The identical situation exists with AGW. Don't do anything - which is what everyone will wind up not- doing, anyway. The problem will solve itself. It may take a half a century or more, but things are indeed 'warming up'. I'm old enough to see the changes. Personally, I don't care. When scientists say there is likely to be a 6 degree Celsius warming, it is possible to check the geologic record and see when such a warming took place ... 6 million years ago.

Hmmm, no humans. Oh well. It was fun for me, how about you?

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:47
#141443

Me? We lost our last three winter wheat crops to extremely cold winters... it cost us plenty... you?

by Jim in MN
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:09
#141461

A more energetic climate system produces more extremes.  The tails on the distributions move more than the averages. 

Thus your extremely cold winters.  Too much energy in the system bumping the Siberian air your way. 

You have in ALL LIKELIHOOD been impacted by human-induced climate change.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:24
#141464

Hey how was that snow you guys had a couple of weeks ago Jim?

Let's see if I get this right... If things get very hot it's "Global Warming" and if things get very cold it's "Global Warming". Kinda like heads I win tails you lose don't you think?

Did you read one of the IPCC authors report released a couple of months ago that predicted Global Warming may pause for the next twenty years? Sounds like a stall tactic to me... seriously ... read it then get back to me... you know where I live... sometimes.

And the 'lost heat' that should be there if the models were correct that your guy Trenbeth was worried about in the Emails??? Did you miss that? How could you miss that?

And how about the lack of the high tropospheric and low stratospheric heat signatures above the equator that even the AGW crowd admits MUST occur for the models to be correct... miss that too? Ha ... just look at the radiosonde and satellite data... it's just not there... sorry... nice try.

by Jim in MN
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:32
#141482

Yes, extremes of both hot and cold are to be expected.  It's just basic statistics.  More energy, more chaos and more phase transitions.  We humans 'notice' certain parts of distributions, like plus-100 degree days, and a small change in averages or a flattening of a distribution (more in the tails) is a very noticable thing.  Plants and animals notice too as they often die or leave.

The cool summer in MN was a 3 standard deviation occurance.  A black swan of nice weather.  So, yeah.  Quite consistent with the theory. 

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:38
#141526

IPCC lead author and prominent climatologist admits cooling over the last decade and predicts a cooling not a warming trend for next 10-20 years...

Sounds like global warming may get downright chilly doesn't it... I love these exchanges... is twenty more years of cooling still consistent with global warming Jim? Just askin?

I hope you didn't buy too many carbon credits for your retirement portfolio...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090922133239AAUPJJg

by Jim in MN
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:47
#141536

Why yes it is consistent.  Thanks for asking.  Global climate change, you know, it puts the CC in IPCC.  Global warming is kind of an amateur or casual term. 

Ask the British what life without the Gulf Stream might feel like--a bit chilly, wot?

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:37
#142376

Finally Jim...

Lets talk about Trenbeths email where he is concerned about the lack of heat in the system... remember the oceans are the reservoirs of over 80% of the planets heat... not the atmosphere... follow me so far... good... check it out please...

Trenbeth was disturbed (as you may or may not have read) that they could not find the additional heat in the system that must be there for global warming to be real... follow so far? If not read his email if you dare...

The postulation is now that the heat must be in the deep ocean.. follow so far Jim?

Problem here is that the Argo floats (3,000+ of them) have indicated a cooling of the oceans (at least to 5,000 feet I believe) for the last couple years not warming.

That in a nutshell is your problem Jim... while extremes are considered to be a sign of global warming the means must continually increase for the theory to hold water as it were. Nice try again.

Would someone care to propose a challenge between Jim and myself to have a Global Warming debate here on Zero Hedge? Anyone?

How about you Jim I've been spoiling for a fight on this topic for years. (Could be fun?)

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:29
#141475

You are of course refering to the Hadley cells that originate in the tropics and travel over the temperate latitudes descending around 50 degrees north and south of the equator in essence creating the jet streams aren't you? I hope you are or else you know very little about actual climatology... do some research Jim and catch me again next time... I gotta go now and I love these exchanges...

by Jim in MN
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:49
#141537

Ta for now then or as the kids say l8r.

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:40
#142389

Listen Jim please take no offence I just love sparring with you... this is what real science is about... debate.

We need to examine both sides of an issue to separate the wheat from the chafff as it were... (Little farmer lingo for ya!)

Thanks again and yes I know you are a sharp cookie :-)

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 12:51
#142160

"Scientists are people too, and if you read all the comments (here?) scientists feel justifiably under siege.
"

I can't say I agree with the "justifiably" part. The sense of siege the emails convey is that they were going to have to release their data and code under Freedom of Information Act requests--that lead to the "please delete these emails" stuff and the "I'll destroy it before I produce it" stuff. When a scientist starts getting funky about that, it probably means he knows he's going to look pretty bad when the data doesn't support his conclusions.

"Funny thing, the scientists just want people to stop burning coal. What's the big deal? I don't burn coal, do you?"

Do you use electricity? A significant portion of it probably comes from coal plants.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:51
#141392

This modus operandi is exactly how the FDA and CDC have operated for decades with drugs, especially with vaccines, and supposed public health "threats." They distort science to make sure their bureaucratic rice bowl gets fed and their Pharma sponsors make money (so the public health bureaucrats have a career after Govt). The H1N1 fraud is just the latest example of FDA and CDC corruption. On an international level, the World Health Organization (WHO) is equally corrupt.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:56
#141395

Any absolute not open to question or falsification is regarded as religious dogma.

If global warming is settled science, it is actually religion.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:57
#141396

I cant imagine that anyone is actually shocked by this story. Since the beginning of time, junk science has been an intregal part of human history. From the medieval alchemists to modern day scientology, the crooks and quacks have always figured out a way to dupe the rubes.

The interesting thing about this story is the fact that it was a bunch of russian hackers who exposed the fraud. It would be interesting to know what the hackers motivations were for exposing this fraud.

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:44
#141440

99% sure it was an inside job. Seriously.

by BorisTheBlade
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 04:42
#141692

The only basis on which it was claimed that russian hackers did that, was the fact that files were first posted on a russian file sharing website. that's it, nothing else.

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 20:58
#141397

by ZerOhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:40
#141431

I love you Mayhem... really I do...

(not in a gay kinda way however... not that there is anything wrong with that...)

Post this video often... very often... there are new readers joining us daily...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:24
#141415

Great Post! So, I guess conspiracies do exist afterall - even at the highest levels.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:42
#141439

Almost all of you are just plain retarded!

You have come up with the idea that global warming is a scam devised by Al Gore and Goldman to create a carbon tax exchange; even though the idea of global warming has been around long before the idea of a carbon tax exchange.

Have you not thought there are groups with far more direct financial interest in proving this incorrect? Are you telling me that Exxon cannot afford to widely publish and advertise results that prove these theories incorrect? Do you think Exxon would not do that if they could find solid proofs?

Do you not see just how fucking retarded you are?

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:43
#141535

Exxon was or is just fighting fraud!

Known fraud that is now provable!

The burden of proof now rests on the unprovable theories!

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:56
#141545

Takes one to know one.

by KevinB
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:56
#141449

Considerably more coverage, with literally dozens of links, available at "smalldeadanimals.com"

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:32
#141483

Thanks, smalldeadanimals.com link is highly recommended

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:00
#141451

global warming is a fraud plain and simple...the un-fundedness of the hoax is immaterial to its deceitfulness....

it is a pile of pure elephant shit and just another tool which the oligarchs are using to impose their wicked totalitarian regime....

constant war / constant fear = constant control.....

rise up to overthrow these men of iniquity....

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:07
#141458

How prescient the Cato Institute's Sept. 23 "The Dog Ate Global Warming Article" really is:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578

Starting with the opening question of what if some of the data had been fiddled and working through many of the same points the e-mails bring to question. On Sept 23rd., two months ahead of this e-mail hack. Impressive. I'd say they have firm credibility on this issue at this point.

Amos the Elephant

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:20
#141467

The Australian goverment has just passed an Environmental Trading Scheme. Surprise surprise; the big polluters are getting billions in subsidies to keep doing their shit while everyday mugs like me look like paying out and additional $1100 a year for having the cheek to use electricity etc. This is just a tax grab disguised as a green initiative.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:23
#141468

Before all of you conspiracy nuts spooge on your keyboards about the vast global warming "Conspiracy", try familiarizing yourself with the hoardes of research, entirely unrelated to anything in those emails, which remain unchanged (especially considering some of the content is 10 years old and has become irrelevant).

Considering the US hasn't spent a penny on climate change, other than an insignificant amount on basic research, this must be the most unsuccessful conspiracy ever. But don't let that get in the way of your ignorance.

by KevinB
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:13
#141550

I just love people like you - here is evidence that, at the very pinnacle of climate research, conspiracy, data adulteration, obfuscation, etc. not only exist, but are actively promoted, not by peons, but by the very top people in the field, and you say "try familiarizing yourself with the hoardes of research" (nice spelling - did you get your GED?). Er, would that be like all the research claiming Antarctica is shrinking, while all the satellite data shows it's basically the same size over the last 40 years? Would that be the "temperature data" based on stations situated next to air conditioner exhausts, over concrete/asphalt pads, and disproportionately distributed among urban/near urban sites? (see surfacestations.org).

And, as usual, you post NO links to your "data", NO links to your "models", NO links to any evidence at all except your own opinion, but you call us "ignorant". Put up or shut up, dweeb.

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:16
#141557

Considering the broke and rapidly-impoverished US taxpayer funds the UN  (22% of UN funding by my count), and by implication, the IPCC,  we have spent millions on this garbage research which should be more accurately termed 'pseudoscience'.

 

Please do some research before you post,  God knows I spend hours on this,  do me the same courtesy of searching, reading and formulating coherent fact-based arguments if you'd prefer to disagree.   I don't mind disagreement, I often incorporate them into my articles.

 

What I have no tolerance for is people who are too lazy to formulate dynamic and engaging opposing views.

 

"Just under $2 billion in federal funding goes to support climate and global change research in the agencies and departments participating in the USGCRP"

 http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/usgcrp_budget_reporting_impedes_meaningful_oversight/

 

Thanks.

 

by Jim in MN
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:25
#141470

I hope that PM continues to refine the approach to this issue, as the most provocative line here isn't the most valuable one for this blog's energy.  The big picture science has indeed been settled for over a century.  The political economy is well worth fighting about. 

I also urge my fellow posting/reading humans (since we all passed the ZH screens) to reconsider their stance on this issue, and to accept the mainstream scientific community's best efforts to come to grips with this issue. 

There are lots of evil plots out there.  The science of global climate change isn't one of them.  How to handle it needs to be debated; I hope ZH, PM and others here take the time and energy to participate in the real debate rather than the phony one.

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:35
#141485

So Jim are you gonna install the GPS unit in your car or what

by Jim in MN
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:03
#141554

I don't like ecofascists any more than the next patriot.  I would rather discuss ecofascism than whether or not we have ecological problems.  We do.

Stephen Breyer, now Supreme Court Justice, wrote an interesting piece long ago in which he tries to balance the need for a technocratic elite against the countervailing need for checks and balances.  Maybe that's worth discussing.  Here is a review and critique from Sheila Jasanoff, herself one of the most distinguished thinkers in the field of 'science and policy' (she wrote The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers among other works):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_199404/ai_n8720105/

Although I suppose we could just stick to Leviathan and On Liberty and get the main points out.

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:35
#141569

Good point, but 'ecofascism' is not a rag-tag bunch of well-meaning liberals who want to reduce pollution (as controlled opposition such as Glenn Beck would like to have us believe).   The ideology is funded by banks, particularly some of the wealthiest families on the planet.   Totalitarianism, in all its incarnations, is always funded by banks. In this particular form,  the totalitarianism has nothing to do with reduction of pollution, and everything to do with expanding government control over the lives of private citizens.  I believe Hannah Arendt correctly identifies the structural causes in her work The Origins of Totalitarianism.  We are just moving towards the final historical forms of totalitarian government.

 

ie. The unholy merger of State power with private capital under the guise of a pseudo-religion...  this is why UN 'scientists' were given massive amounts of funding to provide falsified data for the international political objectives of mega-banks.

 

by Jim in MN
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:38
#141581

Well, my original point was that I hope you take this issue and move it somewhat beyond the turgid waters of the science debate and get right at this aspect.  In other words, there is plenty here for future posts.  Generally I am in agreement with what you're saying here and would like to see it brought more to the forefront. 

As someone who appreciates a tradeable emissions permit system in the abstract, I find it particularly horrible to see it drooled over by the Squidian set.  But there it is.  And control is after all its own reward, it unlocks many gates to profit and simple human pleasures of dominance.

I think the ugly process of solving (or failing to solve) complicated problems in complicated global societies is going to be the overriding story of the century--other than simple wars, famines, plagues, cosmic-scale heists and monetary collapses of course. 

Shit. 

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 10:19
#141972

The reason you appreciate the the carbon trading scam is because you are one of the scammers. I caught you on one of the another threads getting your ass reamed something about windmills down under, if I recall correctly. Your greedy hubris forced you to come here with your sick elitist brain to do damage control. Your picture gave you away among other things.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:13
#141563

Jim;
Even someone with a subterranean I.Q. knows you can't debate fraud. It is what it is. Cheers

by Apocalypse Now
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:14
#141564

Good grief man, after all of the information presented you go back to the playbook call of "the science is settled".  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink - did you vote for Al Franken?

You are not an intellectual as you would like to believe if you can't evaluate new information as it becomes available.  Your statement "since we all passed the ZH screens" is indeed unusual and suggests to me that you are not one of us but pushing an agenda or propaganda - The reality is there is no screen, we just sent an email address and picked a name and picture so your statement that we all passed a screen is a poor premise with which to establish your credibility.  I will summarize what we most likely have here, a confluence of interests and issues:

FACTS

1. Oil is extremely important to our economy and we have passed peak (cheap) oil - cost

2. Population growth and expanding economies will require more energy including oil

3. Pollution is real, but CO2 is beneficial for plants and therefore people and animals

4. We are stuck in the middle east to control strategic oil resources (but Obama anti-war)

LEADERS MINDSET

Government and leaders manage to the least common denominator and towards the masses, so the message is not designed for those in the higher IQ side of the bell curve.  These leaders believe all people act in their own best interest, and not necessarily the interest of the planet at large or our combined interests. They might also believe that unless there is a financial incentive for businesses to innovate (huge potential profit especially on carbon trading - again not a producer but a banking leach) that capital formation will not make the initiative effective. We can understand creating a true message everyone can understand, but intellectuals are incensed with being lied to.

We must transition off of middle east oil for cost and conflict reasons as the cost for those resources will increase due to reduced future reserves (fine now, but planning ahead when the cost curve increases if we don't have alternatives).

With the internet, it is increasingly difficult for 1% to rule the other 99% so they want to control information and disinformation (Jay Rockefeller, congressman and brother of Mr. Big, stated it would be better if the internet had not been invented and has put forward a bill that would allow Obama to eliminate the internet by decree in an "emergency").  As Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama advisor) stated, it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people (a chilling statement if you look at the tens of millions that have been killed in countries by their governments in the last 100 years - many of which were socialist/fascist leaders). 

WORLD GOVERNMENT

Now that we have established where we are, a group decided to lie to us.  They fabricated information and sold an idea with movies that the fate of the world rests on reducing CO2.  Why was CO2 chosen?  Well, CO2 is given off by every man, woman, child, and animal and whoever controls CO2 controls every man, woman, child, and animal. 

Rockefeller stated a world government run by bankers and intellectuals is superior to democracies, and this is tempting  but elitist logic when you think of the decisions that voters have made (although voters aren't given real choices).  Warburg in front of congress in the 50's said we will have world government, whether you like it or not, by consent or conquest (family with ownership of the federal reserve).

Kissinger (administration advisor) stated Americans would be outraged if the UN entered their cities, but if they were made to believe in an outside threat, whether real or promulgated, they would gladly welcome them with open arms because mankinds greatest fear is fear of the unknown.  Re-read that statement, H1N1 and Global Warming fit this promulgated fear of the unknown perfectly.

These banking oligarchs want to rule the world, and they don't want the peasants (us) to have a say in it.  But because the US is so strong, they can't take over the world unless Obama gives them the keys to the car and we cede sovereignty from within.  Many events have taken place in the past and will take place in the future that they plan ("never waste a crisis" - red flag operations) to move in the direction of their world wide government agenda. 

Statements from UN:

"The UN is the greatest fraud in history. It's purpose is to destroy the United States." (John E. Rankin, a U.S. Congressman)

"The age of nations must end.  The governments of nations have decided to order their separate sovereignties into one government to which they will surrender their arms." (U.N. World Constitution)

The first president of the United Nations General Assembly, Paul-Henri Spaak, who was also a prime minister of Belgium and one of the early planners of the European Common Market, as well as a secretary-general of NATO, affirmed, "We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and whether he be God or devil, we will receive him."

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a luciferian initiation (David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations)

“When the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.” — H. G. Wells, in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939)

Is it any wonder why rational individuals don't want a world government led by luciferians?  By the way, the highest levels of the Masonic order (33+) are illuminated luciferians - read the writings of Albert Pike, a key Mason held in high esteem.

The UN has been promoting and voting for sinister agenda items to kill off large sections of the world population from a malthusian perspective, many of these individuals use "spirit guides" - clearly occultic, just like Hitler.  Nature will be elevated into a religious cult and humans will be de-humanized so that mass genocide will be considered acceptable to "save the planet".  Read the quotes again, I didn't say it they did.

AGENDA DECISION

This movement to combat an imaginary threat (global warming) was promoted since it would require world government to solve.  It would provide more control to Oligarchs (CO2 = your life) and line these bankers pockets by taxing all of humanity.  It would also strategically benefit the US for the necessary transition from middle eastern oil.  Liberty is the balance of power between the collective and the individual rights, and a totalitarian state in any form is the opposite of freedom in whatever form the totalitarian power takes if too concentrated: fascist/capitalist/socialist/ or communist.  Always fight for a balance of power if you cherish your liberty and your freedom - don't trade liberty for security.

Bankers have bought off the leaders of the world and acadamia - with a printing press you can bribe the world to promote the agenda - always follow the money.

 

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:40
#141583

Absolutely correct in my opinion, but some people do not have the time or inclination to delve into ancient books from published from 1870 - 1933 in order to understand where we are going....    I generally avoid these topics for ZH but I do agree with what you are saying.   The letters between Mazzini and Pike are critical.

 

Email me at project.mayhem.research [at] gmail and I will send you several rare pdfs I have acquired

by Jim in MN
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 00:54
#141594

That's just silly, taken as a whole, particularly the ad hominem insults.  Most of that UN stuff is entirely fabulous, and I mean that in its original sense: a fable.  I believe you have constructed a faulty framework for your understanding of the situation.  I will grant you a benign motivation in doing so; more than you have shown me.

We face deadly serious times so I hope you can clear your head.

For your level of understanding I would suggest the simple but profound book 'World Population and Human Values' by Jonas and Jonathan Salk.  Think sigma curves and phase shifts.  Also if you think you can handle it 'The Society of the Spectacle' by Guy Debord. 

It would make more sense to say that the damages brought about by global climate change should be consciously acknowledged and borne by society, because the level of state control required to bring about major changes in energy systems is itself an unacceptable cost in terms of our liberty.

Funny, I have never seen anyone actually say that.  Oh well.

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:10
#141603

Debord's Society of the Spectacle is good , but mostly plagiarized.  Maybe that's what you'd expect from a man who shot himself through the heart.  I prefer

 

On the Poverty of Student Life (1966)

http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/4

 

I appreciate your contributions even though we disagree on the technicals.

 

Cheers

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:06
#141604

<duplicate>

by Apocalypse Now
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:13
#141657

So you did vote for Al Franken?

You never addressed your non sequitur that since we all passed the screen you are somehow credible and to be believed.

The statements on the UN are indeed accurate, you must be a sympathizer.  Rockefeller also thanked the major publishing and television companies for keeping silent on the world government agenda, and that without their discretion their plan for world government would not have been possible.  The fact that they are now talking about it in the open suggests that the infrastructure and groundwork is solid and operating.  Here's another interesting fact I failed to include about the publishing company for the UN:

The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Lucis Trust was established in 1922 as Lucifer Trust by Alice Bailey as the publishing company to disseminate the books of Bailey and Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society. The title page of Alice Bailey's book, 'Initiation, Human and Solar' was originally printed in 1922, and clearly shows the publishing house as 'Lucifer Publishing CoIn 1923. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. (Constance Cumbey, The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow, p. 49). A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.

At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 666 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". In an Alice Bailey book called "Education for a New Age"; she suggests that in the new age "World Citizenship should be the goal of the enlightened, with a world federation and a world brain." In other words - a One World Government New World Order.

I believe you have constructed a faulty framework for your understanding of the situation, you sir are looking at trees when I merely showed you the forest.  Every major agenda must benefit powerful interest groups to get traction, and I showed how the confluence of interests enabled this agenda to solve mutual objectives.  You are not a genie granting wishes or motivations.

We do agree that we indeed face deadly serious times, so I hope you can clear your head as well, and your dire predictions are not scary.  The very definition of terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes or the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.  Fear is the tool of tyranny, and those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will get tyranny. You see, these "issues" that we are facing are all "global" in nature, quite a coincidence don't you think: Global warming, Global terrorism, Global H1N1 flu.  The reason for all of these is to create problems that have high probability responses so that they can implement the solutions (never allow a crisis go to waste) that just happen to line up with their agenda - world government (PRS system).

Your last paragraph is gobblety gook "It would make more sense to say that the damages brought about by global climate change should be consciously acknowledged and borne by society, because the level of state control required to bring about major changes in energy systems is itself an unacceptable cost in terms of our liberty." - this wrongly presumes that global climate change only causes damages when there are benefits and misconstrues mankinds role when the planet is part of a naturally occurring cycle caused primarily by sunspot activity.  However, if your point is really that we should be open about national energy policy transition for real reasons (consciously acknowledged), I can accept this.  Inexpensive energy provides greater freedom, like our ability to get into our car or plane and travel freely over a long distance.

by GoldmanSux
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:08
#141605

Care to expand on your comment "the big picture science was indeed been settled for over a century?"

by Jim in MN
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:23
#141617

It's late.  I'm tired.  Start on page 121.

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/FCMTheRadiativeForcingDuetoCloudsandWaterVapor.pdf

Happy Thanksgiving.

by snorkeler
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:09
#142312

Oh, Jim is tired.

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:14
#142449

Say Jim it's a new day and you shouldn't be tired so let's play...

It's interesting that you quote settled climate science that originates in the 1800's. You should really update your library :-)

Try this first... it's an easily understandable (yet longish) study on solar/atmospheric climate physics... by real scientists... I've got tons of current research so we can spend weeks on this if you wish... heres an interesting hypothesis for ya big guy...

http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/

Remember just because your stuff is dated doesn't mean its correct. Didn't they put leaches on Washington to cure him before he died? Just askin...

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:16
#141783

Jim;
Even someone with a subterranean I.Q. knows you can't debate fraud!!! Fraud is what it is.

by New_Meat
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:49
#141824

"... accept the mainstream scientific community's best efforts ..."

Yo, Jim, that a'int science, but it is politics.

Ned

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:26
#141472

The Clausius-Clapeyron equation demonstrates that moisture (or more specifically, saturation vapor pressure) increases nonlinearly with temperature. Funny how we've had a lot of extreme rainfall events recently.

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:44
#141493

Al Gore...................go bk.

by Ignore Amos
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 22:51
#141496

Prescient work by the Cato Institute, pointing out the fraud that these e-mails show.  And doing it two months ago:

The Dog Ate Global Warming

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578

Amos the Elephant

 

by Ignore Amos
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:02
#141504

So when does the movie An Inconvenient Fraud come out?  Just askin'....

 

 

by Sun Tsu
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:29
#141522

Conspiracy, no simply Fraud.  Neurotic scientists hired by the CRU with grants provided by the Ted Turner UN Foundation's Director Timothy Wirth who were AGW zealots and true believers.

by exxjarhead
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:34
#141524

I know I will be ridiculed for this but the book came came out in 2007.  An Inconvenient Book by Glenn Beck.  Chapter 1.  I know most people think he is a nut, but he nailed this years ago. 

by ghostfaceinvestah
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 02:51
#141649

As does Alex Jones in his latest documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

Another "nut".  Easy to slap on a disparaging label, not so easy to refute facts.

by Gilgamesh
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 10:21
#141973

This is the book I have loaned out and recommended to people since it was published:

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551164/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

by TomB
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:37
#141529

The sad state of the climate pseudoscience:

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/11/skeptics-handbook-ii-global-bullies-wan...

by Anonymous
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:49
#141539

Smoking Gun?

*From:* geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[5]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
[mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[6]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>] *On Behalf Of *David
Schnare
*Sent:* Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:49 AM
*Cc:* Alan White; geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<[7]mailto:geoengineering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
*Subject:* [geo] Re: CCNet: A Scientific Scandal Unfolds

Gene:

I've been following this issue closely and this is what I take
away from it:

1) Tree ring-based temperature reconstructions are fraught with
so much uncertainty, they have no value whatever. It is
impossible to tease out the relative contributions of rainfall,
nutrients, temperature and access to sunlight. Indeed a single
tree can, and apparently has, skewed the entire 20th century
temperature reconstruction.

2) The IPCC peer review process is fundamentally flawed if a
lead author is able to both disregard and ignore criticisms of
his own work, where that work is the critical core of the
chapter. It not only destroys the credibility of the core
assumptions and data, it destroys the credibility of the larger
work - in this case, the IPCC summary report and the underlying
technical reports. It also destroys the utility and credibility
of the modeling efforts that use assumptions on the relationship
of CO2 to temperature that are based on Britta's work, which is,
of course, the majority of such analyses.

As Corcoran points out, "the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature
forecasting and 4) communication. None of these efforts are
sitting on firm ground."

Nonetheless, and even if the UNEP thinks it appropriate to rely
on Wikipedia as their scientific source of choice, greenhouse
gases may (at an ever diminishing probability) cause a
significant increase in global temperature. Thus, research,
including field trials, on the leading geoengineering techniques
are appropriate as a backstop in case our children find out that
the current alarmism is justified.

David Schnare
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Eugene I. Gordon

<[9]mailto:euggordon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx >>
wrote:
Alan:

Thanks for the extensive and detailed e-mail. This is terrible
but not surprising. Obviously I do not know what gives with
these guys. However, I have my own suspicions and hypothesis. I
dont think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I
think they are dishonest and members of a club that has much to
gain by practicing and perpetuating global warming scare
tactics. That is not to say that global warming is not occurring
to some extent since it would be even without CO2 emissions. The
CO2 emissions only accelerate the warming and there are other
factors controlling climate. As a result, the entire process may
be going slower than the powers that be would like. Hence, (I
postulate) the global warming contingent has substantial
motivation to be dishonest or seriously biased, and to be loyal
to their equally dishonest club members. Among the motivations
are increased and continued grant funding, university
advancement, job advancement, profits and payoffs from carbon
control advocates such as Gore, being in the limelight, and
other motivating factors I am too inexperienced to identify.

Alan, this is nothing new. You and I experienced similar
behavior from some of our colleagues down the hall, the Bell
Labs research people, in the good old days. Humans are hardly
perfect creations. I am never surprised at what they can do. _I
am perpetually grateful for those who are honest and fair and
thankfully there is a goodly share of those._

-gene

by Project Mayhem
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:39
#141627

Nice find

by ZerOhead
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 15:28
#142467

Have you read the comments from the CRU scientist trying to rework the climate model data and source codes yet? Just out today on Wattsupwiththat don't miss it.

If this were a murder investigation it would be a slam dunk but for the most part the MSM has missed this... I guess they don't want to look as bad as they should. The Emperor indeed is wearing no clothes.

I've always smelled bullshit with this IPCC crap... now I smell blood.

And it smells wonderfully.

Heres a sample....

Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)

Priceless... it's full of this stuff...

by Project Mayhem
on Tue, 11/24/2009 - 23:57
#141548

This article is really good... pretty funny too...

 

Climategate: MSM Writers Try to Ignore Scandal in Global Warming Stories But Readers Bring Them Back to Reality

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/11/24/climategate-msm-writers-try-ignore-scandal-global-warming-stories-read

by anynonmous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 08:20
#141788

by Cistercian
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 01:44
#141628

 I have wondered for some time what drives the global warming nonsense.I wonder what TPTB would do if they knew that the oil reserves were quickly running out?Would they try to figure out a way to drive demand down through the floor?Just doing that would lower tax income so much it would be disastrous for them.The global warming scam seems a plausible way for governments to reduce demand, enhance tax revenue, and reduce the number of the unsightly and troublesome poor.I do not necessarily think the UN or some global gov plot makes the most sense.Is there a conspiracy?Absolutely.But I suspect the real villains are far more pedestrian than the global elite theorists think.

 As far as man made warming goes....it is just laughable.A volcano, sun output changes, etc have the REAL control.Personally, I am glad we are not in an ice age.That would suck big time.And the Sahara used to be a grassland.That was man's fault how?

 I will tell you what would be comical...an actual climatic emergency.These self important frauds would soil their clothes if 1.The Yellowstone caldera erupts apocalyptically. 2.A 5 mile diameter meteor hits in the ocean(or anywhere actually).3. The sun's output drops dramatically.Note no one can tell you why we endure cyclic ice ages.Nor can they prove the cycle has been broken.They are CLUELESS.

 

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 02:40
#141645

It's funny... TPTB are actually a number of factions, sub factions and unrelated groups of ageing assholes.

I know oil is running out. In my estimates and study and the reports I've read, it's going to be critical within 10 years. By critical, I mean, it will take more energy to take a barrel out than what the barrel is. This is simple energy balance. Other groups... specifically the 'Templars' think there is at least another 50 years though significant change must be had... though there are some in 'Templars' which doubt that.

What all do agree, is that nuclear is a way out. But, to get to that there must be WWIII (within three years though I'm gunning for sometime next year or 2011).

So, once that is understood, debates about climategate are mute as it won't matter in a few years.

by Anonymous
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 02:25
#141640

I've read through this whole debate and no one has mentioned 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. Made to look controversial at the time, its looking mighty accurate in light of the CRU hack. For all those who say the 'science is settled', even in the face of this latest evidence that it isn't, I recommend you go and watch it, although if your mind is made up I don't think there is much anyone could say here to convince you otherwise. I guess you shouldn't bother if you've personally just completed polar flyovers to confirm the icecaps are shrinking.

Of course, AGW most certainly being a fraud doesn't mean that we aren't being killed at various speeds by all the other environmental toxicity present. But that's not the issue at hand. The issue, IMHO, is what seems more reasonable? That we ignore every other important environmental/health issue to focus on a gas we breath out and is used by plants as food, but, unchecked, will apparently bring on the Apocalypse if we don't pay taxes to an unelected World Government? Or that the same Powers That Be behind the push to World Government, and most likely the controlled takedown of the world economy, need a way to make the sheople pay for it directly, while at the same time ceding large portions of their delusional freedoms and feeling good about it all? I'd say the latter personally.

The CRU hack is not only historic in and of itself, but is timely and of monumental, very imminent importance because of Copenhagen. Will BO sign or not?

Project Mayhem, kudos for putting all this together.

by ghostfaceinvestah
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 02:48
#141647

Global warming may or may not be happening.

But man-made global warming is a MYTH.  This is all about serfdom.

Fall Of The Republic indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8

by Rogue Economist
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 03:50
#141680

In order for the NWO to make a profit of climate change, real or imagined, they would have to have a functioning monetary system.  They also would have to have people employed making money they could tax.  They seem to be able to manage neither at the moment, so why worry about taxation of money you will never make, and if you made it wouldn't be worth the carbon based paper it was printed on anyhow?

You are worried about some Goobermint apparatchik in Belgium preventing you from selling you house because its not Green enough?  Wake Up Call.  you can't sell your house NOW, whether it is Green or not!  At least not unless its a short sale and not unless Da Goobermint will provide some other sucker with an FH backed loan you can't sell it.

If our Illuminati friends ever figure out how to stop the cascading collapse of the monetary system they built here, then we might have some worries about how they might tax carbon credits or anything else.  Right now they look completely ineffectual in terms of controlling the collapse, and its going to be VERY hard to tax businesses on their Carbon Emissions when there are no biz left to tax here.  Increasing emissions from cars burning gas is highly unlikely when no car manufacturers are left standing.  More cows farting methane is highly unlikely when fewer people have enough money to buy Steaks.

If/when the Warburgs, Rockefellers and Rothschilds figure out a way to get their bullshit currency system operational again, then we might have to worry about being taxed on it.  Meanwhile, fewer people all the time make any money at all to tax, and fewer all the time own homes they don't send in Jingle Mail on, so how Green said house is is a moot point. 

Let me clue you in here.  Peopl who have no money to tax, who have no cars to drive and who have no houses they can afford to live in will not give a Rat's Ass WHAT kind of Tax is dropped down here by the UN, Al Gore or Lucifer himself.  The big problem faced by the Illuminati is exactly how to maintain power when the House of Cards of the Monetary System fails.  Coming Soon to a Theatre Near You.

RE

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.