Climategate!

[sgreger1]

Remember when in 1975 US government pushed 'the coming ice age'...

[justintempler]

Remember when in 1975 US government pushed 'the coming ice age'...

I do remember it.... except it wasn't the government pushing it. It was the media. The media had it wrong then, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have it wrong now.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

[sgreger1]

Remember when in 1975 US government pushed 'the coming ice age'...

I do remember it.... except it wasn't the government pushing it. It was the media. The media had it wrong then, and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have it wrong now.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P70SlEqX7oY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

No. The scientists had it wrong. In the coming months we'll see all the other institutions that have been faking the numbers to further their political agendas. CRU's data was used by others so it most likely didn't stop with them. Nasa is the next one that is trying their hardest to not honor FOIA requests for their data, but they will have to give it up eventually.


The reality is that the globe is always changing, during the course of human's stay here on earth we have weathered at least one cooling and warming phase. The environment such as ocean, volvanoes etc play the largest role in climate change. What we have now is not real scientists looking for a solution, but the government pushing for control by manipulating those of us who want real eco-friendly policies.

[sgreger1]

Oh no! Another climate scam scandal, this time in Denmark
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
12/04/09 8:22 AM EST
November was a horrendous month for global warming propagandists, what with somebody hacking into the computers of East Anglia University's Central Research Union (CRU) and exposing thousands of emails detailing how climate change data had been systematically cooked.

Now it looks like December could be another bad month because the Copenhagen Post Online brings word of an exploding scandal in the Scandanavian nation involving massive fraud in the trading of the Danish CO2 Quotas Register. That's Denmark's cap-and-trade system in which companies buy and sell carbon emissions credits.

The Obama-Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry global warming cap-and-trade bills now before Congress are modeled in part on the Danish CO2 Quotas Register. But things don't look good for the Danish climate change initiative, according to the Copenhagen Post Online:

"Police and authorities in several European countries are investigating scams worth billions of kroner, which all originate in the Danish quota register. The CO2 quotas are traded in other EU countries.

"Denmark’s quota register, which the Energy Agency within the Climate and Energy Ministry administers, is the largest in the world in terms of personal quota registrations. It is much easier to register here than in other countries, where it can take up to three months to be approved.

"Ekstra Bladet reporters have found examples of people using false addresses and companies that are in liquidation, which haven’t been removed from the register.

"One of the cases, which stems from the Danish register, involves fraud of more than 8 billion kroner. This case, in which nine people have been arrested, is being investigated in England.

"The market for CO2 trade has exploded in recent years and is worth an estimated 675 billion kroner globally."

[wa3zrm]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j-rFmnhIdes&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

[justintempler]

Remember when in 1975 US government pushed 'the coming ice age'...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-mole/

The global cooling mole

ClimateReporting on climateskeptics— william @ 7 March 2008 - () ()
By John Fleck and William Connolley

To veterans of the Climate Wars, the old 1970s global cooling canard – “How can we believe climate scientists about global warming today when back in the 1970s they told us an ice age was imminent?” – must seem like a never-ending game of Whack-a-mole. One of us (WMC) has devoted years to whacking down the mole (see here, here and here, for example), while the other of us (JF) sees the mole pop up anew in his in box every time he quotes contemporary scientific views regarding climate change in his newspaper stories.


The problem is that the argument has played out in competing anecdotes, without any comprehensive and rigorous picture of what was really going on in the scientific literature at the time. But if the argument is to have any relevance beyond talking points aimed at winning a debate, such a comprehensive understanding is needed. If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today’s science-politics-policy discussions about climate change. If, on the other hand, scientists were not really predicting a coming ice age, then the argument needs to be retired.

The two of us, along with Tom Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center, undertook a literature review to try to move beyond the anecdotes and understand what scientists were really saying at the time regarding the various forces shaping climate on time human time scales. The results are currently in press at the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Doyle Rice has written a nice summary in USA Today, and an extended version based on a presentation made by Tom at the AMS meeting in January is on line.

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

•7 articles predicting cooling
•44 predicting warming
•20 that were neutral
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.

http://www.ametsoc.org/Chapters/ashe...utes-Jan08.pdf

[sgreger1]

The reality of it is that the earth has always been a relitavely cold place, and warms on occasion. Nothing we can do will add any meaningfull affect to this. We could impose carbon caps that limit C02 to 0% and it would not change anything. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450 million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.


Politicians are trying to make us look at our century and say "base all your opinions on this", and "we will fix this by taxing your Co2 output, in an attempt to reduce your footprint". The alarmist climate conspiracy types are not looking at the big picture, which is that Earth will warm/cool when it damn well pleases, so we should try to be environmentally conscious, but not break our economies over it. You want to help the environment? Focus on cleaning up all the trash in the oceans and promote recycling, get off of oil as the standard energy source.

AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today.



We modern humans are lucky to live towards the end of the most recent of the intermittent but welcome warm interludes. It is a 10,000 year-long period called the Holocene, during which our civilisations have evolved and flourished.

The cores tell the story that this period is only a short interlude during a long-term decline in global temperature - they also warn of the imminence of the next glacial episode in a series stretching back more than 2 million years.

Some core alterations are ruled by changes in the Earth's orbit at periods of 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, others by fluctuations in solar output and others display oceanographic and climate shifts caused by . . . we know not what.

Climate, it seems, changes ceaselessly: sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, oft-times for reasons we do not fully understand.

Similar cores through polar ice reveal, contrary to received wisdom, that past temperature changes were followed - not preceded but followed - by changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

Yet the public has been misinformed to believe that increasing human carbon dioxide emissions will cause runaway warming; it is surely a strange cause of climate change that postdates its supposed effect?

The now numerous special interest groups who continue to lobby for unnecessary and economically harmful carbon dioxide taxation need to appreciate that nature, not the world's governments, will determine future climate. Second, that there is no scientific evidence that warmings greater than the much-talked about 2C will cause environmental catastrophe; rather, this number is one plucked out of the air for reasons of political targetry and control. And, third, that to limit atmospheric carbon dioxide to 450ppm, also a widely touted figure, makes no sense, because past carbon dioxide levels attained more than 10 times this without known adverse environmental effects, while greening the planet.

Politically popular though it may be, the belief that atmospheric carbon dioxide is the primary driver of average planetary temperature is junk science. For instance, Earth experienced an ice age about 450 million years ago at a time when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been 15 times the pre-industrial level.

It is simply science fiction to believe that 450ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide and 2C of warming are magic numbers that somehow mark a "tipping point"in Earth's climate system. Rather, they are politically contrived targets, erected for the purpose of stampeding scientifically innocent citizens into a gaping corral of carbon dioxide taxation.

The simplest explanation for the mild warming that occurred in the late 20th century is that it was part of Earth's ever-changing pattern of natural climate change and the job of scientists is to seek evidence to test that interpretation. They have and literally thousands of scientific papers to date have described climate evidence that is consistent with natural change.


Despite all the efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the expenditure of about $100 billion of research money since 1990, no scientific paper exists that demonstrates that the late 20th century warming, or the past 10 years of cooling for that matter, fall outside the rates and magnitudes of past (geological) climate change.

Melting glaciers (but, in some places, advancing), rising sea levels (but, in some places, falling), increasing numbers of storms (actually, currently at a 30-year low), increasing numbers of polar bears and changes in migratory patterns of birds may very well all have happened or be happening. But these facts say nothing about a human causality for such changes.

[tom502]

Next wednesday on TruTV show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venture, the subject is Climate/Global Warming. It should be good. I watched this last night for the 1st time last night, and it was about 911, and was really good.

[sgreger1]

Next wednesday on TruTV show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venture, the subject is Climate/Global Warming. It should be good. I watched this last night for the 1st time last night, and it was about 911, and was really good.

Yah, i heard his episode on HAARP was really god too. I havn't been able to catch the show since i have no idea what time it's on or what channel

[sgreger1]

[justintempler]

sgreger1,

You do understand Mike's trick was about tree ring data.

I guess thermometers are too old fashioned for you. :roll:

[sgreger1]

sgreger1,

You do understand Mike's trick was about tree ring data.

I guess thermometers are too old fashioned for you. :roll:

I understand exactly what happened.

Here's the problem the scientists face, and how this whole thing came about:

Only recently have we been using thermometers to measure the global temperature, therefore scientists have to rely on other sources for temperature stats such as tree ring data or ice cores etc.

The problem is that the data doesn't match up. What's happened here is that the climate models used to rpedict things are not as perfect as they had expected and it is causing a confusion on which data to use for the official numbers.


What's the reality of climate change (imo):

The climate is changing, as it always had, earth has been doing it since it first had a climate. Does man contibute something? I'm sure they do. Is it significant? Should politicians use it as a reason to create another fiat currency in carbon credits to try and "save" the planet? That's the debate.

Well let's look at one truth. If we accept what the scientists are saying, than we are already at critical mass with the C02 thing, meaning our fate is already sealed. Should we spend all of our time and money trying to maybe cut a small percentage of OUR contribution, or should we use said resources to build technology to adapt and overcome whatever the new environment is.


The left, and politicians are trying to play down the emails from CRU, focusing mainly on the "trick" email, which is not even the most damning of all of them. Al Gore went on TV the other day and flat out lied about the contents of the emails. This is what spreads doubt.

It's also the fact that this situation is much like the Iraq war WMD situation. One party gets together and says "we want to invade iraq", so they create some intel/data about yellowcake, WMD's etc. This gets spread to everyone, and soon it looks like there is a concensus that Iraq has WMD's so we should attack. Even if 1 source is found out to be a lie, they can still claim "but look, everyone else thought it to, look at all the OTHER sources. When in fact it was really a small group of people propogating this entire lie.


Same with the e-mails, CRU, and a small group can taint the entire system by spreading false basic data which is then used by other climatologists for thier models. So even though CRU get's shown for what they are, they can say "but look, there is still a census, the evidence is overwhelming that <strike>Iraq has WMD's</strike> global warming will destroy us.


It only takes a few bad apples to taint the whole data set. And that is what I (read, I, just me) believe is happening here. Their further lying, unwillingness to investigate/debate, and otherwise defensive nature just solidifies my belief in this.

[Bigblue1]

Too Funny.... ROFLMAO

[justintempler]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5AyjLTaP0i0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>




120% of Americans agree... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
par for the course for Fox, we wouldn't want things like facts get in the way

[sgreger1]

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5AyjLTaP0i0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>




120% of Americans agree... :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
par for the course for Fox, we wouldn't want things like facts get in the way

Wow, and I get accused of using the "latest republican talking points", your definately doing the same thing here. We know Fox news ****s up all the time. Fox news polls mean nothing, it would be like MSNBC asking how many of their viewers were liberals and then claiming it represents the nation. What is your obsession with posting Fox News content anyways, am I Fox news, are you debating Fox News? Do you imagine that everyone who has a right of center opinion automaticly only watches Fox News or something? Cummon be fair here. You've posted more Fox News content than I ever have.

only 57 percent believe there is strong scientific evidence the Earth has gotten hotter over the past few decades, and as a result, people are viewing the situation as less serious. That's down from 77 percent in 2006, and 71 percent in April 2008. -MSNBC

I mean it strikes me as odd that the emails don't even raise a question if maybe there might be foul play here, instead I just hear everyone on the left saying they mean nothing. How do you figure:

Re Email:
One referred to using a "trick" that could be used to "hide the decline" of temperatures.
Another disparaged the skeptics, and a scientist said "the last thing I need is news articles claiming to question temperature increases."

Yet another complained about "getting hassled by a couple of people" to release temperature data that suggests uncertainties about climate change. "Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act," Phil Jones, the director of climate research unit, wrote in one e-mail.

In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Is this the kind of objectivity and openness you want in your scientists? They say they'll keep skeptics out even if they have to change what peer-reviewed literature is?

This is like someone who watches that Fox news poll you posted and believes it, and then when someone points out that the poll is all farked up and is obviousely not real information or scientific in any way, you STILL believe the numbers because you have already subscribed to one belief?