Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

The Climategate Emails and What they Mean. www.lavoisier.com.au...

An excellent free ebook

............It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous “kick” (co2) to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importance—one that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.

Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating arguably the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent scientists; abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fence around themselves and their fellow activists, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their “research”.

Most people find it impossible to believe that this could have happened; and it is only because “climate science” exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of a few years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.


cont...........................

reply to post by exile1981


Thank you for your reply. The data you have yourself supplied is skewed. If you want a good understanding of co2 levels. Have a look at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center..data.worldbank.org...

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

19.3 USA
5.0 China

These figures are for the year 2007. Your comment about the boats at see not being counted is standard when trying to allocate CO2 levels. That is why there are some very small islands with high levels it is because there are military bases there or a lot of refuelling . It is the farest way to give an estimate without having to trace every vessel that docks somewhere.
For example some might say these figures are skewed because they do not include all the american military bases around the world. That would put these figures up no end. So really in the great scheme of things I would not worry about a few Chinese boats kicking about. ..

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

The Climategate Emails and What they Mean. www.lavoisier.com.au... An excellent free ebook

wow you are not still here are you. I ask for facts are you present a blurb for a book. I asked for scientific papers you present me with a failed google links. I ask you for evidence you present me with opinion...

reply to post by Aim64C

Humans cannot create new problems, only find new ways of expressing their flaws.

Yes humans can create new problems... The hole in the ozone layer would be a good example, or the modern cancer epidemics... These are modern problems created by modern technology.

Technology offers us more options for our creativity and logic to utilize. It doesn't come up with solutions - people do.

Since humans create the technology, then it is humans that create technological solutions.. I dont get what your point is here...


I agree with most of what you said at the end, but I find this a sticking point.

I'll put it another way - people deserve the life they live and/or lose and the manner in which they live/lose it based upon their decisions in life.

Following your reasoning, one nation has the right to detriment my biosphere to a point it cannot recover. You are correct but I find that hard to swallow. We are all it this together and we live in a global community...

regards purp...

reply to post by purplemer


Except when the 16 ships produce more CO2 than all the cars in the world, that is such a huge amount of CO2 that ou can't just ignore it.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

The Climategate Emails and What they Mean. www.lavoisier.com.au... An excellent free ebook

wow you are not still here are you. I ask for facts are you present a blurb for a book. I asked for scientific papers you present me with a failed google links. I ask you for evidence you present me with opinion...

Is it a gift being so obnoxious - or did you absorb it from the 2000 scientists you work with?

I have kindly directed you to a source of over 900 peer reviewed papers that do not endorse AGW.....www.populartechnology.net... - if you want to pretend its not there, I can't help you!

Quoting from your reply to a post earlier - "What does it matter. How does it hurt to have renewable energies instead. Peeps should get over it. No one knows what is causing climate change. But the risks are not worth taking..."

Since you have already ceded that 'no one knows what is causing climate change' ...................and therefore all pro- AGW papers carry no weight for you - what on earth are you arguing about? - and why would you try to pretend that there is not a great deal of respectable scientific opinion, that simply does not agree that AGW is anything like the world threatening problem that the likes of Al Gore are making it out to be.

Al Gore who by the way recently commented that he thought the temperature of the interior of the earth must be several millions of degrees. You might like to let that sink in a bit..............the Guy who has been the main mover of this, hasn't got the faintest shred of scientific literacy - and is completely incapable of grasping whether this is an actual threat or not..................................so do you suppose his oh-so passionate advocacy of all of this might actually be motivated by something else, maybe a hidden Political agenda perhaps, maybe his membership of the Club of Rome!?

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by exile1981

 

Thank you for your reply. The data you have yourself supplied is skewed. If you want a good understanding of co2 levels. Have a look at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center..data.worldbank.org...

So the one source is the UN and the other is the US gov't, which is funny that the UN one shows the US lower than the official US numbers do.

reply to post by mc_squared


MC, you are correct that my post was absolutely wrong by jumping from the link to the actual paper, to a source on the un-forced standard, then using my "Aha" statement.

It was late where I was and I just wanted to get my post in and go to bed. I failed to read it after I posted, and the result was unintelligible gibberish.

Thank you for calling it to my attention.

However, you are completely mistaken to conclude that I went to some third party summary for the substance I left out. My post clearly gave my link to the article:

Oh oh!

Science Journal has just published research from Oregon State, Princeton, Harvard, Cornell, University of Oregon, and the ICREA and Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Funded by the U.S.A.

It is entitled: "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum."

It can be found here: www.princeton.edu...

Your assertion otherwise is blatantly false and you know it. Among other of your usual tactics, putting words in others' mouths, or denying what was clearly posted is always the first I can count on.

The rest of the pro-AGW hogwash that followed doesn't realy matter, anyway.
The substance of the Article, and the analysis I somehow either deleted or failed to copy into the post render the usual AGW premises moot.

The paper published in this week’s Science supports an assertion that:
1 the science is not settled; and (more importantly),
2 the climate is less sensitive to CO2 than AGW fear-mongers had long-professed and sustained their arguments upon.

The AGW advocates’ usual employment of limited and cherry-picked data to skew their results was not followed by the research team. They used, instead, world-wide data going back about 20,000 to the Last Glacial Maximum.
The result found that the IPCC’s projected rise for a doubling of CO2 was far above what should be expected using a larger dataset.
The group’s most likely figure for climate sensitivity is 2.3°C, (more than half a degree lower than the “consensus” figure), with a 66% probability that it lies between 1.7° and 2.6°C. More importantly, the results suggest an upper limit for climate sensitivity of around 3.2°C.

Using the larger datset, a doubling of preindustrial CO2 levels will result in global warming within the limits that even the CRU/IPCC fearmongers still felt acceptable and the goal they were extorting industrialized economies to reach.

(I apologize for the omission. It was too late and I neglected to re-read what I’d posted.)
Still sucks for the AGW faithful and those who make their fortunes on their fears and our economies.

jw

reply to post by purplemer

The data you have yourself supplied is skewed. If you want a good understanding of co2 levels. Have a look at the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis

Center..data.worldbank.org...

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

19.3 USA
5.0 China

If you want to be more accurate and give a better perspective fo the present situation, look here:
U.S. Energy Information Agency, International Energy Statistics

What you will see, is that over the last 10 years, worldwide CO2 emissions have increased by 33%.
Over the same period, US total and per capita production have declined; but China's have more than doubled!

Even more importantly, don't forget that China and the Indian sub-continent have been the overwhelming leaders in the production of "black soot" among their emissions. Black soot is famously responsible for the destruction of glaciers, poisoning of rivers and the Indo-Asian haze that permeates the tropical Indian Ocean.

jw

reply to post by fenceSitter


Moral fallacy argument. Even if we do everything the eco-terrorist's(warmers should be tried with treason against humanity, every last one of them) want, it still won't do a damn thing as the "developing nations" will unleash so much pollution that it will be for naught. And worse yet we will end up in a position of poverty, almost destitution while they become rich.

No TY.

reply to post by john_bmth


Scientists are biased on this topic. It is in the favor of their career to work for Climate Change, rather than raise a critical voice (or just simply check satellite data and see there ain't much warming on offer). There are numerous other examples where this new world priesthood of scientists get it all wrong, to start with Maxwell, meteorites, quantum theory, cold fusion / LENR, etc. And not least, the funding is a sort of pyramid scheme, offering escalating rewards up until the truth finally breaks through.

We need to remember, during 1970s the same were convinced on looming ICE AGE! www.skepticalscience.com...

There is big money in question. European Union alone puts billions in climate monitoring organisations and satellite systems. Billions. Each year.

There is absolutely no question, the incentive for giving blind eye, clamp down critical thinking, its all there. The elite wants global tax, and for that it needs global threat, and for the threat to be real, they need You to agree and subjugate to their dogma. Equation is simple. And when backed up by billions of euros each year, government funded research organisations will follow the political agenda.

Why do they not want to halt excessive rain forest harvesting and not pay carbon credits for it? Since that has actually huge climate impact www.telegraph.co.uk...
And that is least to say hilarious. When their scheme hits back to them.

Thing is, this global carbon tax scheme and the money it collects, it is not meant for distribution. It is meant for giving a platform for getting steady cut, for those who deserve the money ...

Originally posted by deckdel
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Scientists are biased on this topic.

So what about the details of oil industry funding I managed to find for the papers that JohnnyBGood posted? I think having the industry line your pockets would also bias your results, right?

reply to post by korathin

worse yet we will end up in a position of poverty, almost destitution while they become rich.

I know this isn't the stated goal of the true AGW diehard faithful, but that is exactly the agenda of many of the late-comers, who see an excellent opportunity to ride the wave of hysteria and achieve global redistribution of wealth.
Obama's own "Science Czar," John Holdren has admitted this. ( His Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, sees one of his major goals to be to drive U.S. energy prices up to "European " levels. )

Not a single one of the proposed AGW "cures" can accomplish its putative goals; i.e., slowing global warming, without taking the largest share of the costs from Western economies.

Not a single one of the putative "cures" has even been shown to have a rat's-ass of a chance of success; witness: Kyoto and Montreal Protocols, Bali Action Plan, Copenhagen Agreement, EU Carbon "trading," all of which have been abject failures (while imposing unwarranted costs upon Western societies and enriching their advocates).

AGW is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky redistribution. "Renewable energy" isn't renewable when you take into consideration the scarcity and costs of vital components such as ground water, rare earths, limited useful life and lack of infrastructure. "Green jobs" aren't green except in terms of the color of the currency given as subsidies to make them appear to be cost-effective.

Not a single one of the AGW faithful can point to a "solution" that has worked, or can work without taking inordinate amounts of money from the most successful economies, even though studies have shown that it is success and development themselves that result in the greatest improvement in efficiencies and the "greening" of societies!

deny ignorance
jw

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by fenceSitter

 

Moral fallacy argument. Even if we do everything the eco-terrorist's(warmers should be tried with treason against humanity, every last one of them) want, it still won't do a damn thing as the "developing nations" will unleash so much pollution that it will be for naught. And worse yet we will end up in a position of poverty, almost destitution while they become rich.

No TY.

You don't get it do you?

How can we ask China to curb emissions when we do not take a step no matter how small nominal and inconsequential in that direction? You are right they will unleash so much pollution it will cancel out our efforts but not if it is already seen as a bad thing to pollute the atmosphere with carbon emissions. And don't say plants eat it.

reply to post by purplemer

wow you are not still here are you. I ask for facts are you present a blurb for a book. I asked for scientific papers you present me with a failed google links. I ask you for evidence you present me with opinion...

Here is the problem, and you don't seem to grasp it (as with many in the pro-AGW crowd):

Those of us who have taken the time to learn the scientific method and a thing or two about math and statistics know that the entire assertion of "global warming" is manufactured and based on flawed data at best - downright fraud at the worst.

The instruments and methods used to record temperature are not accurate enough to record tenths-of-a-degree changes to an average temperature. It also doesn't help that quality control of the stations is horrible - with these stations being placed near parking lots, burning barrels, tarmacs for jet aircraft, heat exchangers, the list goes on. Those are all effects that you cannot "adjust for" in your statistical analysis. Adjusting for the "heat island" is a load of bovine feces.

Not to mention, the figures collected were -never- intended to be used on a continental scale to determine average temperatures of said continent to within less than a degree.

We can read charts and graphs just as well as you can - probably better (particularly in my case). However, we don't care about the graph, the table, or the discussion of it - because we care about the methods used to obtain the numbers used to make the graph.

And that is why you've not been seeing eye-to-eye with those skeptical of the AGW concept. You can cite all the pretty graphs you want. "Climate Gate" discusses the very things skeptics have been saying about the entire notion of obtaining an average temperature, and illustrates a number of key individuals actively ignoring and suppressing data, results, and information that contradicts the AGW proposal.

Yes humans can create new problems... The hole in the ozone layer would be a good example, or the modern cancer epidemics... These are modern problems created by modern technology.

Neither of those were, or ever will be artifacts of a system within our control. There has never, once, been a cause-effect relationship determined, or even strongly implied, by any research.

You make the assumption that everything in nature is part of some glorious and harmonious system of cooperation. It's not. Plenty of plants we eat for food or use to make teas have been linked to various forms of organ failure, others can downright kill you. The idea that exposure to a substance can cause you bodily harm is nothing new. Rather than teaching kids how to -not- die from nature; we teach them math, sciences, and that they all can be pro athletes or actresses.

Similarly, nature can be self-destructive. Plants kill each other off, leech nutrients from another process, and create chemicals that are toxic to some forms of life. Modern geology also accepts that rocks, themselves (along with many minerals) have co-evolved with life on this planet. Many of the compounds seen in rocks and sediment are a direct result of plants and other organisms converting energy from the sun into chemical reactions that create compounds that would, otherwise, not exist.

Since humans create the technology, then it is humans that create technological solutions.. I dont get what your point is here...

Technology does not create solutions - which is what you stated. Humans come up with solutions utilizing the tools available to them. Technology is a tool - an asset to be utilized at the discretion of the individual(s) developing a solution.

Wording - verbiage - is excruciatingly important to me. Every word I place into a sentence is put there for a reason and to convey a specific meaning (even if it is a generality - the point of using a generality is to convey indifference on my part).

Following your reasoning, one nation has the right to detriment my biosphere to a point it cannot recover.

This is where I'd start to draw a bit of a defining line. Everyone has the right to live in a manner that he/she believes in, but has the responsibility of having respect for the choices of others. That is not to say that someone has the right to say: "you have to use x or y method because you will release fumes into the air that will eventually make it to me" - but that complete negligence or deliberate petulance is not tolerable.

It's one thing to say: "dude... no... you can't just let all that # run into the river." It's another to say: "No, sorry, you're not going to be able to use oil based paint."

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by deckdel
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Scientists are biased on this topic.

So what about the details of oil industry funding I managed to find for the papers that JohnnyBGood posted? I think having the industry line your pockets would also bias your results, right?

BP alone has invested 550 million into AGW causes.

Big oil sells carbon, they have much to gain if carbon credits get a foothold.

So tired of the big oil funding arguement, because they fund more warmest research than anyone else.

People seem to forget that carbon trading was invented by Enron CEO Ken Lay, because they knew there was a lot of money in them.

reply to post by Aim64C

The instruments and methods used to record temperature are not accurate enough to record tenths-of-a-degree changes to an average temperature

Go and have a look at the change in temperature at the Arctic in the last hundred years. It is well documented. Some of these changes may seem small but remember last time we were in an iceage the average temp on the planet only fell a few degrees.

What makes you think the only method used to measure the results of climate change are temperature. There are many factors involved in climate change that can be factorised ie. bioregional flucations, ocean salinity, jet streams velocity, past environments (ice cores readings for example.) Changes in the Thermohaline circulation...
I could go on but you get the idea.

What you are failling to see here is that there is a good consensus across a range of specialised facilities across a range of national and international bodies.

reply to post by Aim64C

The instruments and methods used to record temperature are not accurate enough to record tenths-of-a-degree changes to an average temperature

Go and have a look at the change in temperature at the Arctic in the last hundred years. It is well documented. Some of these changes may seem small but remember last time we were in an iceage the average temp on the planet only fell a few degrees.

What makes you think the only method used to measure the results of climate change are temperature. There are many factors involved in climate change that can be factorised ie. bioregional flucations, ocean salinity, jet streams velocity, past environments (ice cores readings for example.) Changes in the Thermohaline circulation...
I could go on but you get the idea.

What you are failling to see here is that there is a good consensus across a range of specialised facilities across a range of national and international bodies.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

BP alone has invested 550 million into AGW causes.

There is a lo of bull # coming out in this thread you have that the wrong way round it is well documented...

Here is one example for you....

US oil company donated millions to climate sceptic groups, says Greenpeace Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by purplemer

Yes humans can create new problems... The hole in the ozone layer would be a good example, or the modern cancer epidemics... These are modern problems created by modern technology.

Apart from being completely off-topic, this statement is utter nonsense.

If humans caused the ozone hole with CFCs, why didn't it disappear after the Montreal Protocol and the worldwide ban on their use. Your refrigerators and cars cost more and use more energy today, because people thought people caused and could cure ozone holes.
The ozone hole is larger than ever today. FAIL.

Modern cancer epidemics? What about ancient ones? DNA analysis in now revealing that people died from all of the "modern" cancers thousands of years ago. FAIL.

If you are fed up with modern technology, you can solve that yourself.