The so called "climategate" climate science scandal has already eclipsed Watergate in terms of its global political ramifications
The article below analyses the Climategate emails and documents, now in the public domain, from 1996 up until November 2009. It recreates the scenario of what went on inside the small group of scientists at the heart of the great man-made global warming hoax, as they become more and more concerned that their data does not support their theory of global warming.
As the plot thickens, they try to silence and ostracise critics, they "lose" and falsify data, delete emails, and generally cover up their fraudulent activities. They finally admit that they cannot explain why the earths climate is changing, and in fact there is evidence that it is cooling, a fact that they label as a travesty!
This will surely be made into a film some day soon, but only after, I hope, the whole nonsense of anthropogenic global warming has been well and truly exposed, , the scare tactics have stopped, and especially the lunatic system of Carbon Credit Trading has been dismantled and shut down.
Climategate analysis by John P. Costealla B.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/repri … lysis.html
When issues as big as Climategate happen there is usually debates from two sides those that claim to have the truth that it is really happening and those that also have the truth that the other side is wrong.
There are no records telling us how the planet Earth coped last time it was in this position in the Solar System and I think that a lot of these so called facts we are being told is something the governments of the world have the media feed us. This gives us something to chew on while they do the sneaky things governments do.
Regardless of what the foolish scientific community does there is no denying the earth is getting warmer.
And it will get cooler ain't it cool how cycles work!
I'm with you. Suddenly everyone's a scientific expert. In the words of someone famous, yeh right
Exactly. Skeptics and believers in general tend to be about as qualified as each other. In other words, most of us already have a position decided, based on our political proclivities, then we fill in the gaps with various articles and sources from the media, and the Internet. I mean, even the experts themselves obviously have lots of trouble with the data. The idea that the general public could have the remotest chance of making sense of it all is laughable. (And I am including politicians among "the general public")
Hey - you are the one telling me not to worry, it will all be OK.
I am open to either possibility but am rather scared by how many vocal Christians are adamant climate change is either not going on - which is BS, because I have seen it myself. Or I should have faith that it will be OK.
"Don't worry - we can carry on raping the earth making fortunes fr the elite few and it will all be fine. Cyclical. Trust me - I know." ..............
Smart unscientific community does not care, it just needs something to worry about
I am hearing a lot that many scientists are predicting a mini iceage, so let's see.
Cjeck the last ten years temperature records and tehn feel free to admit you are wrong.
Global warming is a farce. We are currentl undergoing the earths natural climate change cycle.
Hey - I am saying nothing either way. I do not know for sure - but it certainly fits in with my personal observations.
I grew up in Holland and we had no ice for 12 years straight which ended last year.
I can smell your car fumes every time I go outside. I cannot see the Alps today for the air pollution. And these guys are bleating because they are getting screwed politically.
They know nothing. Nothing. Neither do I - or you.
But - they are less animals, less fish - barely enough Cod to prevent a war over; the French fishermen are forced to follow the Tuna for thousands of miles now. The Chesapeake bay is barely able to clean itself, the water is undrinkable in much of Africa and any fool can see we are running out of certain resources.
Not that we are having an effect or anything.
Oh no. It is arrogant to think we might have an effect.
Don't get me wrong. I am sure the planet can look after itself and evolution tells us that when a population gets too large for the environment to sustain it.............
Thats an awful dark world you live in, there is plenty of fish and game where I am. I'm real sorry about french fisherman good luck with that, hey, maybe your government can wish em up some fish? Thats a good idea, get the french government on that ASAP
Mark doesn't grasp economics. As things get more scarce the cost to produce goods goes up. Since cod is becoming more scarce, not only is the price going up, but it's getting harder and harder for fishermen (French in this case) to make a living. The ones who can't hack it will go out of business and as enough of them do, pressure will be relieved on the fishing grounds, leading to a resurgence of fish. Oh also since the price of cod will go up due to scarcity, fewer people will choose to buy cod. This will further force fishermen into bankruptcy and more quickly relieve the pressure on fishing grounds.
By the way, Mark, Americans still aren't burring oil like they used to, neither is China for that matter, care to comment?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_ … JpY2VzZG93
Nope, LDT - fish do not understand economics. Unfortunately, if overfishing drives the number of fish below a certain threshold, then it is very unlikely that stocks will recover. That is pretty basic stuff - the ocean is far more complex than you seem to understand.
Not everything fits into your tidy little economic theory, LDT.
Hi Colebabie - hope that you are keeping well
'Tis a fine example - that is before we even broach the subject of the potential for extinction when genetic diversity is reduced.
Not as easy as simple supply and demand
I am doing very well thank you. I graduate in May finally!
Watch the movie Shark Water, pretty disturbing, but good documentary!
I will have to keep an eye out for that one - maybe one to add to my ever-lengthening Amazon list
Not long to go, then - have you any plans after graduation?
Do you have dvd rental stores in Greece or something like Netflix?
I applied to Physician Assistant school, I am waiting to hear if I got in If not, I will work in a lab somewhere and take a few extra courses to improve my application.
There are a couple of rental stores in Sparta, but they tend to stock mainly the latest releases - it depends whether it has Greek subtitles. If not, they are unlikely to stock it
Good luck with the Physician Assistant school - it sounds like you are determined and that is half of the battle
..besides which, the way in which you handle the crap flying around these forums will stand you in good stead!
If you need any proofreading or anything, give me a shout - I will find some time
Um Sufi, if fishermen can't find the fish to sell how can they keep making payments on their boats. Besides, do you know the magical number of fish you need in order to ensure continuation of the species? Show me one example where overfishing has eliminated a single species. I can give you an example of a time in which a lack of fishing caused a very quick upsurge in fish population worldwide. World War II. After the war, fisherman began seeing bumper hauls like they hadn't seen since the turn of the 20th century. It only took six years for the fished populations to restore themselves.
Look at Chernobyl. No human life there for 20 years. It is now the largest most diverse wilderness area in the Ukraine. Despite what the Chicken Little "ecologsists" say, nature tends to rebound fairly quickly from pressure put on populations.
How about an example that is not human induced. The K-T extinction event wiped out 75% of the species on this planet, yet the biosphere recovered and then some. How about the "Great Dying" at the Permian-Triassic boundary? Something like 96% of all ocean species went extinct, with a similar number of land species going extinct as well. Yet life continued down to the present day. There have been, in fact, 5 great extinction events, all occurring before the rise of humanity. Yet humanity did arise and life did continue. The argument that humanity is destroying the Earth itself is specious.
Sorry Mark, I was doing babysitting, no chance to reply earlier.
We are more or less on the same page here, I too think our environmental impact in many areas sort of goes overboard. I am trying to reasonably reduce my own and my family impact. Yet I don't attack other people for not doing the same, for a couple of reasons.
First, I may be wrong. I've been proven wrong too many times in this life to take any of my opinions for THE TRUTH.
Second, at some point I came to the conclusion that attacking my opponents does not help to get my message across, quite the contrary, it efficiently blocks the reception.
And specifically on human induced GW - I tend to regard it as a biggest scam of our times. Enormous resources are wasted on a case that is not only unproved, but likely unprovable on our current knowledge level. Pretty much like existence of christian god.
Would have been no problem should resources be unlimited - but they are quite limited in fact. Those same resources could have been spent say on trash removal from the oceans and its utilization or recuperation of overfished species - things that clearly are our communal fault and responsibility to fix.
And I don't even start on countless extra laws and regulations that government,inc. imposes on all of us in the name of GW LOL.
That's why I despise GW hype, seriously. More than water4gas.
For the first time in 40 years Ireland has just been froozen to 11 degrees below, bring on the global warming before next winter.... Hello Tex how you doing there...
Everyone is still missing the point. Even if global warming is happening and it is man-made, it will cost $50 trillion to mitigate global warming by only 5-6 years. We could use that $50 trillion to, i don't know...eliminate poverty, hunger and disease?
Will global warming hurt the US? no. Will it hurt Canada? no. Will it hurt Europe? no. Will it hurt any developed country? NO!
It will only hurt poor countries...why don't we spend the money to help them out of poverty???
Btw, this view didn't originate with me. It comes from Bjorn Lomborg at the Copenhagen Consensus.
Because we have problems of our own. Poor countries are poor because they're run by thugs and criminals. Unless you think Robert Mugabe is a paragon of virtue. All "helping poor countries" will do is give money for these guys to put in their Swiss bank accounts. I, for one, am opposed to rewarding thuggery. How about you? If Bjorn Lomborg feels so strongly about it, let him send his money and put his money where his mouth is.
So you're saying what? Eh...yeah, we might have screwed up the entire planet, we're not sure. But it's gonna take so much money to fix it...well, let's just spend that money on something else, suck up some more resources, and in about fifty years or so, when we've turned the planet into an empty wasteland and destroyed ourselves, at least we'll know we had a good time and helped some people out for awhile.
Do you really think that poverty is a priority if there's NOT GOING TO BE A LIVABLE PLANET in which anyone can spend money? How do you figure that reductions in the amount of drinkable water, floods, rising (undrinkable) water levels, changing currents, and intense weather patterns won't affect developed countries? Do you remember Hurricane Katrina? The US is STILL cleaning up that mess--if stuff like that starts getting out of control, we're ALL screwed. (BTW, I'm not saying I know for sure that this IS going on, but if there's a CHANCE that it is, well it scares the crap outta me...we all know we should be doing different, better things for our planet and ourselves anyway).
Btw, it doesn't matter whose idea it was originally, if you're here spreading it as your opinion, you own it, too.
Q. How do you create a Global Warming panic when the weather isn't cooperating?
A. http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mos/m … rming.html
The earth's climate is changing. Obviously, there is evidence to support it. Global warming, as "scientifically" documented may still be a complete farce, but the climate is still changing. As Mark alluded, it doesn't give us the right to "rape" the earth just because fraud has been exposed. It just makes the reasons for climate change more unknown than known.
The rest, apparently, is emotional manipulation for gain by certain groups, I would imagine.
For me, the real issue is . . look what we are being asked to sacrifice and condone on the basis of AGW which is now seen to be based largely on fraudulent information.
- Enormous increases in taxes which might cripple some industries
- Hundreds more personal taxes on anything energy related
- Yet more controls and restrictions on personal freedoms
- Potentially devastating restrictions of the development of African counties, possibly leading to millions dying
- Condoning Carbon Credit Trading, which is largely controlled by our friends the bankers (JP Morgan and co), who will make trillions more out of thin air
And more . . .
Isn't it time we said no?
When I can drive behind a bus and not get nauseous because of the exhaust fumes, I'll consider saying no.
Until then, stop polluting the Earth. There's no excuse for ruining the soil, air and water.
It's naive to think everything we've done and continue to do is reversible. The only solution is to stop polluting.
If that increases my taxes, so be it. Money won't do me any good if there's no clean water to drink.
Look at this video, it breaks environmental problems down into the ridiculous, for people who STILL think everything is okay...
The Story of STUFF:
That is EXCELLENT! Thank you for posting it.
I wish everyone would watch that video and realize we're dealing with finite resources that are disappearing rapidly. Of course there are parts in the video that point out America is...er...behaving badly.
And we all know that's impossible because America is perfect; never wrong or at fault for anything. Ever.
So obviously the video is nothing but lies! And anyone who believes otherwise is unpatriotic, a terrorist, a commie, a socialist, the anti-Christ and quite likely a liberal!
Global warming via carbon emissions and the pollution of the planet’s air and water are not the same thing.
The global warming debate hinges on 2 questions:
1) Is the planet warming at all (many scientists say it is cooling)
2) If the planet is warming, is the warming caused by human CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions? More and more scientists say it is not.
Pollution of the planets earth, air and water is another subject. I think everyone agrees that we should all live more responsibly, and do all we can to stop polluting the planet. Environmental awareness/pollution, in my opinion, deals with, for example
- Using less energy
- Stopping the dumping of toxic waste into the earth, the rivers and the seas
- Reduce plastic bags and over-packaging
- Sustainable farming and fishing
These are environmental/pollution concerns, and whilst vitally important, are outside the scope of this discussion (in my opinion).
That's where we differ.
I believe environmental and pollution concerns are directly connected to climate change.
I believe climate change is partially due to and definitely accelerated by global warming, which in turn is largely due to humans.
You believe climate change is a natural cycle and you believe we're experiencing global cooling.
I don't trust big business.
You apparently do because that's what behind the opposition to reduce global warming, which big business claims doesn't even exist.
And since money rules the world your "side" will fight every attempt to eliminate or drastically reduce the above concerns because it will cost them money. They'll only agree to fully address the concerns when there's even bigger money to be made by fixing things rather than by claiming they aren't broken.
Unfortunately I think it'll be far too late by then.
Sara, I'm with you. How can pollution NOT be related to the global warming issue? I think people make the mistake that these issues can really be separated from one another. I think people need to remember that the all the world is connected--it's a system, and we ought to try to think holistically. Of course what we're doing has an effect on the planet. Didn't our mothers tell all of us that we needed to learn how our actions affect things outside of ourselves?
I don't even think carbon taxes will do that much to cut carbon emissions - they'll just change who does the emitting, as it were.
Carbon trading/tax has to be one of the biggest cons ever perpetrated. Even if I believed that man-made global warming has a significant effect on temperatures (which I don't) I'd still think it was a con.
cut the crap, just care for the environment, thats all,
"Do you really think that poverty is a priority if there's NOT GOING TO BE A LIVABLE PLANET in which anyone can spend money?"
Where is the concrete evidence that the planet will be destroyed? It does not exist!
Those living in poverty probably think its a priority, but hey, you gotta planet to save.
Read the whole post, not just the parts you want to argue with. I've already addressed your question. Besides, the whole planet doesn't have to be destroyed for it not to be livable. I figure the planet will be here...I just wonder if we will.
The earth naturally evolves... it has done so from the beginning and it will until the end x
You are slow to pick up on this scandal.
This story was published in 2006:
Nice one, Jen So, you finally drank your cup of coffee?
Burning some tires in honor of Al Gore tomorrow maybe dump some oil down the sewers, nothing but good clean fun.
Do conservatives ever get tired of whining about liberals being martyrs?
Pot, meet kettle.
Has there ever been a conservative anywhere that asked the question I just asked?
If so please provide details of said question.
Thank you in advance.
No prob. Here you go, the details. It's an email excerpt from a conservative asking the question you just asked.
Hello Sara, you gorgeous, brilliant, sexy woman!
I'd like to nitpick over something ridiculous because I'm a whiny conservative.
I'll ask you a smart-ass question, then you respond by treating it as such to make a point.
I'll be a dumb-ass, ignore the point, then ask you another ridiculous question because, sadly, that's as clever as I can be.
So here's the first smart-ass question:
Do liberals ever get tired of being martyrs?
Is it getting hot in hear?Or is it just Global Warming?
OOPs,I mean Me...
OK, let me say for the sake of the argument, that I believe your scum of the earth scientists theory, and I only have two questions if you are right. First why would they do this, what is in it for them? and second, who in the hell is stealing the glaciers. They were definately there a couple years ago, I saw pictures.
Theres plenty of facts indicating what it was like last time we were at this point. Remember during every period of human history that there has been a global warming, there has been a huge leap forward in human progress.
There is now more evidence that climate data from Russia was "cherry-picked" and that data from New Zealand was "adjusted" to give the desired result.
But the most flagrant example of data "bent" to alarm the public is the famous "hockey stick" global warming graph created by Mike Mann, The Director of Earth System Science Center, and used by Al Gore in his film which kicked of the global warming hysteria.
This graph has now been proven to be completely false, but it has already done its job of frightening people into believing the global warming hoax, and enabled Kyoto to be passed and carbon credit trading to be introduced - one of the REAL REASONS for global warming being so relentlessly pushed, and why other genuine environmental issues being ignored because they will not make billions for their investors.
Surprise, surprise, this is all about money. For Al Gore and his investors, for the scientists who get huge funding grants (Phil Jones of Climategate fame, got roughly 20 million dollars), even the head of the UN IPCC is not above using false, alarmist claims for his own benefit, as it has now been reported that he used the "Himalayan Glaciers Melting by 2035" scare to obtain funding for his projects.
And all the while, the poor scientists who dare to speak out against the scam (and who have nothing to gain) are threatened and ridiculed. But, the tide is turning. There are more and more scientists speaking out, 30'000 at the last count saying that global warming IS NOT CAUSED by CO2 EMISSIONS. There is another group of eminent scientists, even some on the IPCC panel, who have written to the head on the UN complaining about errors and false, alarmist "facts" in the IPCC reports.
How many more scandals and "gates" do we need until the whole can of worms is tossed into the garbage bin where it belongs?
LDT, you are doing that thing where you know nothing about a subject and try to bluster your way through. Then sprinkle a few insults and strawmen.
Firstly, fisheries scientists have a pretty good idea about the number of fish that you can take without causing overfishing and stock depletion. It is called the Maximum Sustainable Yield.
To answer your question of fisheries elimination, the Canadian Grand Banks cod fishery has still not recovered, a decade after the stock collapsed and a moratorium was declared. The stock is commercially extinct and is in danger of biological extinction. The Icelandic spring-spawning herring, Clupea harangues is another commercially extinct stock, as are Sole in the Irish Sea and the Grand Banks Herring.
Your quote about the war is general – fishing has increased almost exponentially since then, and pollution and habitat destruction apply further pressure on stocks. The pre-war period did not see deep-sea trawls and fishermen did not use fishing nets that are kilometers long. Finally, fishing for deep-sea species such as the Orange Roughy, in delicate environments, is a concern – their habitat is extremely delicate and easily destroyed.
The other issue with overfishing is the problem of genetic diversity – too few breeding individuals dilutes this and puts the stock at risk of being wiped put by an epidemic or environmental change.
Overfishing also affects the average size of fish – because fishermen take the largest fish, small size becomes a competitive advantage and overall fish size decreases, as with the North Atlantic Cod.
This sums up why I cannot subscribe to your laissez-faire=good, everything else=socialist evil mentality. In fact, your ideas frighten me more than communism. Your idea is to go into a fishery and take everything, leaving the fishery barren for decades.
Most sensible people agree that finding a level where fishing is sustainable and stocks replenished makes far more sense, in the long run. Take 20 – 30% of the stock and the fishery will continue indefinitely. In the long-term, everybody actually makes more money.
That idea, of take what you need, harks back to the ancient hunter. I like their idea better than relying upon your ‘invisible hand’ and short-termism. I have never yet received an answer from you about how your economic ideas prevent environmental damage.
Strawman #1: What does Chernobyl have to do with fisheries? Terrestrial and marine ecosystems are vastly different, mainly due to the huge distances in the ocean. Of course, you are an expert on everything, so you already know this - why does anybody bother learning anything when it is all wrong, according to the world of LDT? As for the ‘Chicken Little,’ you are the one who is afraid of the Commies/Liberals/Progressives/Environmentalists under the bed. If you are going to insult professionals with a long education and a lot of practical experience, please have the decency to know something about the subject.
Strawman #2: Again, did I say that humanity is destroying the Earth itself? Your assumptions, irrelevance and pigeon-holing are 'specious.' My argument is that humanity is in danger of destroying itself – a big difference.
I am talking about commercial fisheries, LDT – I have my own views on Global Warming and Environmental degradation and they do not fit your asinine assumptions. The earth will do just fine, but a pyrrhic victory seems to be a little hollow. Let’s destroy civilization and go back to the Stone Age – that is where your ill-considered, fairytale world belongs.
I agree with you Sanny. Climate change is a bunch of bull. All of the believers got their ass handed on a platter because Climate Change central got caught in a big fat lie and it was shown how much of a game it all was. It's one big fat cult.
by Doug Hughes7 years ago
From CNN -London, England (CNN) -- An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.The...
by Tumbletree6 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by Sychophantastic3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Holle Abee11 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by sannyasinman5 years ago
Why don't we hear of "Man Made Global Warming" anymore? Simple. Because global warming is not and never was caused by man and his CO2 emissions. Now even the Royal Society, a staunch man-made global warming...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.