Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

It's all rubbish! I do believe that Humans haven't helped and the harvesting of a planet at a rate that exceeds the natural ability of the planet to replenish that harvesting is indeed unsustainable for the Human population, but the power of nature far exceeds our race and believe me this planet will still exist long after Humans cease to exist. I do believe that everything we are seeing, although possibly exacerbated by Human activity, is actually part of the Planet's cycle, possibly the solar system's cycle.

As it has been said, as soon as there is a tax, you know it's BS! Straight away! Even if it wasn't, is taxing me at the airport going to pay for putting a filter on the plane? Is it f**k! Are low car emissions going to balance the billions of tonnes of pollution currently being emitted by developing nations? Is it f**K! It doesn't matter if it is the Green Tax, Congestion Charge, Airport Tax, it's all in the name of revenue! Once you know that much, you know it's a con!

I'm not saying that we aren't having an affect, that we don't needlessly destroy natural areas and arrogantly hunt species to extinction, but I honestly think what we are seeing would happen regardless, just may be at a slightly slower rate and TPTB have simply identified an area that can increase revenue and make a lot of people very very rich, while even increasing control over a population. Result for them!

reply to post by newcovenant

I have to know: Are you (in your vast wisdom and from all your studies) saying that man and greenhouse gasses and depletion of the forests and trees and pollution of the oceans are not contributing to the warming of the earth?

See what you're doing there.....Very crafty.....Adding depletion of forests and the pollution of oceans to the very specific claim that man-made co2 creates global warming in an effort to give it some validity, Because it does not stand on its own !!!

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
I see no one in this thread understands science, it's processes, and how scientists communicate with each other. There are more scientists than this that work on the issue of Global Warming, anyone with basic understanding of a bar graph can see that human factors are causing changes to our planet that are dangerous and close to chaotic.

"Carbon taxes" and offsets are just one tool to help combat this issue; obviously we can't just stop burning fossil fuels, and even if we did the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would take nearly a century to be scrubbed out naturally...I mean, God forbid we plant trees-wait, the logging industry would throw a fit! Well, lets build more efficient cars-wait, the oil companies will throw a fit!

The real enemies of the environment are big business and people somehow convinced that stopping the cascade of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is un-American.

As the co2 content in the atmosphere is man made(?). and is less than one percent of the total atmosphere, (383PPM) can you explain to me how so little can have so much effect on the other 99 percent?

This should tell you everything right here.

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

If you've done nothing wrong what do you have to hide by deleting emails? tell me this one.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I have to know: Are you (in your vast wisdom and from all your studies) saying that man and greenhouse gasses and depletion of the forests and trees and pollution of the oceans are not contributing to the warming of the earth?

See what you're doing there.....Very crafty.....Adding depletion of forests and the pollution of oceans to the very specific claim that man-made co2 creates global warming in an effort to give it some validity, Because it does not stand on its own !!!

They spent a long time soaking those the 'planet is dying' memes into the 'usefull idiots' - whilst deliberate holding back on pro environmental legislation - precisley in order to create a groundswell of environmental activists. This was initially to create a cause that would trump national interests - The A.G.W was siezed upon a little later by Al Gore as the ideal vehicle to assemble a looters coalition with, that would be able to force all their 'One world gov' policies through.

reply to post by beckybecky


I would like to plea for careful reflection that might lead to the necessary distinguish between observable facts and attributed causes and solutions.

To deny the facts would be pretty stupid. To buy in the "causes" might be as stupid as well, as the attribution probably serves other purposes (globalization of taxation and thus of reinforcement thereof, to mention only one).

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by newcovenant

 

I have to know: Are you (in your vast wisdom and from all your studies) saying that man and greenhouse gasses and depletion of the forests and trees and pollution of the oceans are not contributing to the warming of the earth?

See what you're doing there.....Very crafty.....Adding depletion of forests and the pollution of oceans to the very specific claim that man-made co2 creates global warming in an effort to give it some validity, Because it does not stand on its own !!!

Uhh no climate denier. I am connecting much of the warming of the planet and loss of shoreline to man, specifically burning fossil fuel and I am connecting that with influence from oil companies and mega corporations who are so profit driven they cannot find their way to polluting LESS if it costs them a cent.

To their side - when human driven climate change is unquestionably proved (unfortunately this will take huge die offs but they are coming) - the suddenly aware public will not stop at emission controls - they will demand unreasonable measures and so the oil giants (Do I have to look up last years profits for you?) will buy as many scientists as they need to perpetuate the myth this is natural cycle climate change.

It isn't. We are in an enclosed and living reciprocal environment. It is dying because we are killing it and there is nowhere else to go.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood


Yeah Johnny Environmentalists are all manufactured.
So aren't soldiers.


I am reminded of the Indian tale of two wolves fighting an eternal battle inside a man.

One is good and the other is evil.

Which wolf wins the battle? asks the young scout of the elder....

The one you feed, says the elder.


Not telling the man made climate change deniers mmccd's (if you prefer) here what to think.
Just suggesting who you feed. That carbon tax is a nominal fee to get China on board with some kind of effort to curb emissions.

Anyone who is in favor of polluting the atmosphere of an enclosed space is the more likely to be the evil one it seems to me As a matter of fact it all sound like the plot of a James Bond film. Can you see the sinister villain rubbing two hands together... ?
"Overheat and pollute the planet with carbon emissions in spite of environmental warnings then launch propaganda tour bus to fool the masses into thinking the extra heat and extreme weather is just a natural cycle of the planet!" Evil laugh....

reply to post by newcovenant

Uhh no climate denier

Are you trying to infer I'm denying there is a climate ?

That's two posts I can't get past the fist sentence.

Firstly, the hole in the Ozone layer has exactly nothing to do with AGW. It was use of CFCs which have been curbed back since we realized what was happening. They are totally separate issues. To equate the two phenomena is absurd. It's apples and oranges. People who equate the two are trying to blindside the majority of people who don't do a bit of research on the subject.

To believe in AGW is to ignore the history of this planet. Please, folks, do a bit of research. The only reason this is being pushed by MSM and governments is to extract yet more taxes out of working people and into the hands of the already wealthy. It would be succeeding too, if it weren't for the fact that people are finally becoming aware of how much we're already being screwed by these sample people.

I'm all for recycling, not polluting, renewable energy and being cleaner and more efficient than we are. I don't have a driver's license, let alone a car. I recycle paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass, everything I can. I re-use food containers when possible. I gather my own food, make my own wine and use cuttings from the garden as fertilizer or to heat my place. However, I do not want to pay increasingly high bills for my public transportation and electricity because of outright lies. Adding a carbon tax on top of that is plain insulting, as is the notion that, after 4 billion years of this planet's history where, at times, the CO2 levels have been ten times higher, we are suddenly causing global meltdown.

I love how most people seem to think so one dimensional.

It is more than likely mankind has screwed up the Earth a lot, and in a lot of ways.

It is also more than likely some rich jerks got together to think up a Tax they could convince everyone of, while at the same time promoting a depopulation agenda.

The Carbon Tax is not only a scam, it's an Evil Plot. Serious.

Our Earth has been able to balance itself for millions of years but the question is can it maintain than balance as an ever increasing population affects everything around us. Chemicals in the ground/ocean/atmosphere, deforestation, overfishing, animal extinctions etc. Nobody can truly predict how the Earth will handle this. Maybe it will keep its balance, maybe it won't. I lean towards the latter because I believe natural changes take place over thousands of years while from our (blink of an eye) snapshot of historical records, it appears changes are being measured in decades.

Carbons taxes, cap and trade etc. is not a result of 'climate change' - it is a result of Capitalism so lets direct any issues with those approaches to the proper people (corporate/government not scientists).

I look at addressing environmental concerns the same way I look at insurance. You insure your house/car/life etc just in case something happens. IF there is dramatic climate changes imminent and nothing is done then what? I've always liked this approach because it removes the for/against argument and explores just the options available to us.

Ugh, can't believe we in Australia now have a carbon tax The faces of the Green party when it got through was just sickening.


reply to post by NuminousCosmos



I don't see how Aussie is being affected by global warming? Everything is fairly inline here. We have bush fires in WA atm, but that's because the royal fire service was doing controlled burning but stuffed up severely. They'll have a lot to answer for. In the Summer, FNQ gets hit with tropical storms, it was particularly bad last year/early this year but these things happen, it doesn't prove global warming.

reply to post by newcovenant


I agree with the idea that we are destroying the planet. But I would like to point out this...without Co2 all plants on this planet will die. Plus the more Co2 in the atmosphere the quicker plants grow. Co2 is heavier than air and can only be lifted into the atmosphere by water vapour.

"Climate Gate 1.00" such as it was, made the same claims about "shocking" corruption and the results were a Koch Brothers funded climate study which confirmed Global-warming, an audit of emails involved*, which confirmed the integrity of the scientists involved, and at least one prominent denier converting to the acceptance of climate science camp, I don't hold much hope for Climate Gate 2.00

*: including the context of the cherry-picked quotes, which was notably missing amongst the quotes that all those deniers were so "shocked and appalled" about

reply to post by stanats


Well even MSM are retreating from the certain doom...

BBC: CO2 climate sensitivity overestimated

reply to post by newcovenant

Anyone who is in favor of polluting the atmosphere of an enclosed space is the more likely to be the evil one it seems to me As a matter of fact it all sound like the plot of a James Bond film. Can you see the sinister villain rubbing two hands together... ?

Awww - see, you mention 'pollution' as your primary concern - because they spent decades soaking you in ' the planet is dying memes' - (ask the founder of Greenpeace who took over his organisation and why he left!)

As for a 'James Bond novel' - yup that's pretty much it!

This is all the work of the Club of Rome - Founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc). green-agenda.com...

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.” “Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known.

He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society - one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

Is all this James Bond enough for you? - AGW fits their agenda perfectly - all they had to do was manufacture a 'scientific Consensus' for it.

reply to post by grey580


Look at the OP.... None of what the OP "presented" is either illustrative of "corruption" or is "shocking" neither of the quotes are even, in context, "wrong". In fact, the OP engaged in the same behaviour in their post as they decried within the post itself. Talk about hypocrisy.

If I worked in an environment (pun intended) that put every single sentence I ever wrote under a microscope and if I knew that everything I said or typed would be twisted out of context to prove points contrary to my intent or beliefs, I would frequently take my emails out of circulation. Not to "hide" anything, but to protect myself from dishonest folks like the OP and many within the "climate change is a scam" community.

Pu it like this, even if it was a huge scam, the OP's post is in NO way is proof of that... and yet, the "beliefs" of many convinced them to star this thread, without considering it's content.

That's not wildly rational.

WHO is coining this overused and tard title ""GATE"", everything is a gate, every news story comes prefixed with gate, if it can even remotely be applied or rolls off of the tongue. It's use shows a severe lack of any amount of creativity and seems to imbue the author a sense of importance to their article. I for one, am tired, tired, tired of everything'gate'........Michael Jackson gate, Fukishimagate, mexico cartellgate, Kim Kardashiangate, anygate, the use of gate stops me from even choosing to read the article most often as I know the writing will lack creativity, and just be run of the mill, paycheck jourlamism, bla, bla bla in content. GATE=GENERIC

Originally posted by Plotus
WHO is coining this overused and tard title ""GATE"", everything is a gate, every news story comes prefixed with gate, if it can even remotely be applied or rolls off of the tongue. It's use shows a severe lack of any amount of creativity and seems to imbue the author a sense of importance to their article. I for one, am tired, tired, tired of everything'gate'........Michael Jackson gate, Fukishimagate, mexico cartellgate, Kim Kardashiangate, anygate, the use of gate stops me from even choosing to read the article most often as I know the writing will lack creativity, and just be run of the mill, paycheck jourlamism, bla, bla bla in content. GATE=GENERIC

I think you've just exposed Gategate