Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

Not so shocking really. More like ... expected. We've got so much evidence of corruption .... "Hide the decline" ... the players with their big $$ invested in so called 'green technology' .... Gores carbon credit scam ... This is one more thing to add to the growing list showing a 'green' conspiracy ...

S&F

Originally posted by beckybecky
I just came across a second batch of climategate emails which have been just released and it is absolutely shocking at how these evil,rotten,corrupt "scientists" are cherry picking the data to please their political masters.The main stream media has kept quiet.

I urge everyone to read an selection of quotes from these evil nasty corrupt scientists.

I am totally enraged.They should all be fired and arrested for conspiracy to defraud the public and the taxpayers with their lies.

Here is a selection:-


"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out"

"I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming"...


THEY are going to choose what to show US...


asiancorrespondent.com...

edit on 24-11-2011 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Corrupt left wing loon scientists are cherry picking the data? I AM SHOCKED!!!

Wait a minute. No i'm not.
---------
If corrupt liberal politicians throw $$$ billion at corrupt scientists, is it any wonder we get
a bunch of garbage thrown in our laps?

If we throw a few scientists in prison the cherry picking will stop.

Then we will see the whole truth.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


This is just what they were prepared to put down in writing and havn't managed to delete - but it clearly shows that these people were not just 'doing science', they were activists working for a cause!

Scientists should be dedicated, even passionate, but by definition they need to be focused on empirical science, rational analysis and facts. By cherry-picking data -- promoting that which suits their cause and downplaying or ignoring that which doesn't -- scientists have been doing more than simply putting a gloss on their work. Some have conscripted their work into advocacy to shape the public's views about climate. In the 5000 leaked emails there is a range of exchanges between scientists, from unsurprising professional rivalry to justifiable efforts to win publicity for projects. But it is clear that time and again they cross the line. A phrase such as "we're choosing the periods to show warming" cannot look benign in any context. Or an email suggesting data might be selected not on its merits but on its conclusions; "paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW (global warming) is having an effect on TC (tropical cyclone) activity." There are references to "the cause" and notes such as "thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming".

www.theaustralian.com.au...




And here is the 'cause' they were working for:

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives.

But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness',

green-agenda.com...

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

This is just what they were prepared to put down in writing and havn't managed to delete - but it clearly shows that these people were not just 'doing science', they were activists working for a cause!

Scientists should be dedicated, even passionate, but by definition they need to be focused on empirical science, rational analysis and facts. By cherry-picking data -- promoting that which suits their cause and downplaying or ignoring that which doesn't -- scientists have been doing more than simply putting a gloss on their work. Some have conscripted their work into advocacy to shape the public's views about climate. In the 5000 leaked emails there is a range of exchanges between scientists, from unsurprising professional rivalry to justifiable efforts to win publicity for projects. But it is clear that time and again they cross the line. A phrase such as "we're choosing the periods to show warming" cannot look benign in any context. Or an email suggesting data might be selected not on its merits but on its conclusions; "paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW (global warming) is having an effect on TC (tropical cyclone) activity." There are references to "the cause" and notes such as "thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming".

www.theaustralian.com.au...




And here is the 'cause' they were working for:

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives.

But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness',

green-agenda.com...

Again, a few lines from emails out of context and a link to an anti-environmental-movement blog isn't hugely convincing. If I were to go through ANY large group's email and pull out 25 sentences I could "prove" almost anything. On top of all of that, some of these folks may be willing to push boundaries to try and "prove" something, but that doesn't in anyway mean the thing they're trying to prove is inaccurate.

As far as the COR is concerned, I'd suggest the biggest threat to the US population isn't some fantasy genocide, but is in fact big business (who creates all the health care and food regulations which the US gov't writes).

Why s the US population dying so young? It's not vaccinations (those exist in countries with much longer average life-spans ) or the environmental movement (the US is hardly controlled by lefties). It's got much more to do with corporations running every aspect of the US "system," from food to healthcare. Not an imagined conspiracy of genocidal environmentalists and climate scientists.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

This is just what they were prepared to put down in writing and havn't managed to delete - but it clearly shows that these people were not just 'doing science', they were activists working for a cause!

Scientists should be dedicated, even passionate, but by definition they need to be focused on empirical science, rational analysis and facts. By cherry-picking data -- promoting that which suits their cause and downplaying or ignoring that which doesn't -- scientists have been doing more than simply putting a gloss on their work. Some have conscripted their work into advocacy to shape the public's views about climate. In the 5000 leaked emails there is a range of exchanges between scientists, from unsurprising professional rivalry to justifiable efforts to win publicity for projects. But it is clear that time and again they cross the line. A phrase such as "we're choosing the periods to show warming" cannot look benign in any context. Or an email suggesting data might be selected not on its merits but on its conclusions; "paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW (global warming) is having an effect on TC (tropical cyclone) activity." There are references to "the cause" and notes such as "thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming".

www.theaustralian.com.au...




And here is the 'cause' they were working for:

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives.

But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness',

green-agenda.com...

Global Warming has become their new religion.

In their minds the ends justifies the means. I see them as a liberal cult.

It was never really about global warming. It was all about control over the general population
through - fear -. Do what we say or we will all die.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


Sorry, but I'm not really sure that makes any sense at all.

1) There is plenty of actual evidence, sure there's some issues, but there's more evidence for global warming than things like gravity. And no, that's not hyperbole. The issues come in when you start to define how much is caused by humanity, is it all just part of natural cycles, can we affect changes by moderating our behaviour etc.

2) Getting humanity to switch to alternative fuels, or to moderate consumption isn't about top down control, it's about self-control. Humanity, esp in the West, has long had issues with self-destruction. Trying to find a way o avoid collapse through moderating our activity is simply one way to try and prevent collapse. Is that a "lie"...well... maybe, just maybe it's "environmental paranoia"; more akin to the Obama is a secret-Kenyan hysteria than to a top-down desire to control.

3) Finally, as far as "faith" is concerned, both sides are going on faith that their belief is correct. As I said in point one, there's a lot of evidence of actual change, but we have to decide how to interpret that evidence and what our belief is, regarding the evidence and how we should react to it, if at all. No one is free from that; not those on the left, or the right or the politically and socially agnostic.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Sorry, but I'm not really sure that makes any sense at all.

1) There is plenty of actual evidence, sure there's some issues, but there's more evidence for global warming than things like gravity. And no, that's not hyperbole. The issues come in when you start to define how much is caused by humanity, is it all just part of natural cycles, can we affect changes by moderating our behaviour etc.

2) Getting humanity to switch to alternative fuels, or to moderate consumption isn't about top down control, it's about self-control. Humanity, esp in the West, has long had issues with self-destruction. Trying to find a way o avoid collapse through moderating our activity is simply one way to try and prevent collapse. Is that a "lie"...well... maybe, just maybe it's "environmental paranoia"; more akin to the Obama is a secret-Kenyan hysteria than to a top-down desire to control.

3) Finally, as far as "faith" is concerned, both sides are going on faith that their belief is correct. As I said in point one, there's a lot of evidence of actual change, but we have to decide how to interpret that evidence and what our belief is, regarding the evidence and how we should react to it, if at all. No one is free from that; not those on the left, or the right or the politically and socially agnostic.

Have you noticed that Al Gore and his minions are completely ignoring the sun?

I think global warming is caused by normal solar wind, huge solar flares and geothermal
energy. It turns out the center of the Earth is very hot.

----------
But hey, lets just ignore all of that and blame it ALL on man made activity here on Earth.

It makes it all very easy.

There is nothing they can do to effect the sun or geothermal energy. Bummer.
It is natural for the Earth to go through an ice age about every 10,000 years.
We are due for another ice age in about 1,500 years.

Truth be told, we do not have the technology or the means to slow it down or stop it.

reply to post by Eurisko2012


riiiight, but the thing is... that's what you think, and you seem to honestly believe that, but...

lot's of people disagree...

I honestly don't think, and don't be offended here, but... I honestly don't think you can prove your beliefs to me... you can make a good faith argument, etc., and no doubt many people would hear/read it and agree with you, but...

you can't actually prove it...

And, if you really wanted to prove it, passionately, many folks would assume your passion was clouding your judgement.

And check this out, if there were anomalies, that you couldn't explain, you'd very probably not frame your entire presentation of your beliefs around these anomalies, but would instead try to minimise them. It's called presenting your case. We ALLLLLL do this.

I could also add that the people most concerned with the economic impact of "moderating human behaviour" have done some pretty dishonest stuff as well... from big oil, to big business. And for some reason the moral crusaders in the "anti-man-made-global-warming" camp don't go out of their way to point this out. Because it suits them. Because covering up the evidence of their side's immoral behaviour helps them.

Sounds like some climate scientists I know.

reply to post by beckybecky


It begs belief how dumb joe public is to the real issues of the world. The worst thing is the public need Re-Educating on a global scale concerning a lot of issues before its to late. This will never happen so its left for the few to struggle for the many and be slandered and shunned for it. It is not there fault the blame lays solely on the TPTB and there combination of subtle mental conditioning of human growth and the contradicting laws they hide behind.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

riiiight, but the thing is... that's what you think, and you seem to honestly believe that, but...

lot's of people disagree...

I honestly don't think, and don't be offended here, but... I honestly don't think you can prove your beliefs to me... you can make a good faith argument, etc., and no doubt many people would hear/read it and agree with you, but...

you can't actually prove it...

And, if you really wanted to prove it, passionately, many folks would assume your passion was clouding your judgement.

And check this out, if there were anomalies, that you couldn't explain, you'd very probably not frame your entire presentation of your beliefs around these anomalies, but would instead try to minimise them. It's called presenting your case. We ALLLLLL do this.

I could also add that the people most concerned with the economic impact of "moderating human behaviour" have done some pretty dishonest stuff as well... from big oil, to big business. And for some reason the moral crusaders in the "anti-man-made-global-warming" camp don't go out of their way to point this out. Because it suits them. Because covering up the evidence of their side's immoral behaviour helps them.

Sounds like some climate scientists I know.

There is a direct relationship between the weather on the sun and the weather here on Earth.

The proof that you ask for is on the way. My guess is that it will be here in less than 2 years.

---------
When the truth is revealed Al Gore will be forced to return his ill-gotten gains.

The excuse from the scientists will be the truth.

"We were paid $$$ billions to cherry pick the data and deceive the general public."
"Yes, we ignored the sun. It kept getting in the way of our agenda."

The science behind climate change is about as settled (and in fact more refined and abundant) as the science behind evolution. Yes it is incomplete but as all science is, it is on-going and will continue to bring new findings to light. You want to see a conspiracy here be my guest - but the only true issue I have with it is with the corruption in our political system which is evident no matter what the issues are. Climate change itself though should and cannot be ignored, nor waved off as a mere inconvenience.. To do so would not only be foolish but irresponsible to future generations. One should not confuse the science - some of which is more than 3 decades old and most of which is quite well done- with this particular incident.

Originally posted by mrsoul2009
The science behind climate change is about as settled (and in fact more refined and abundant) as the science behind evolution. Yes it is incomplete but as all science is, it is on-going and will continue to bring new findings to light. You want to see a conspiracy here be my guest - but the only true issue I have with it is with the corruption in our political system which is evident no matter what the issues are. Climate change itself though should and cannot be ignored, nor waved off as a mere inconvenience.. To do so would not only be foolish but irresponsible to future generations. One should not confuse the science - some of which is more than 3 decades old and most of which is quite well done- with this particular incident.

Would you agree that the Earth goes through an ice age about every 10,000 years and
that the Earth is due for another one in about 1,500 years?

zooming out of the Hockey stick:
a very simple natural climate cycles explanation...

reply to post by donhuangenaro


It appears that your video shows the Earth going through normal cycles of warming and cooling.

When the population of the Earth was - zero - we STILL had normal cycles of warming and cooling.
----------
So if everyone on the Earth lived like the Amish with horse and buggies then........OMG!!! we would
still have another ice age!

Seek the truth.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

riiiight, but the thing is... that's what you think, and you seem to honestly believe that, but...

lot's of people disagree...

I honestly don't think, and don't be offended here, but... I honestly don't think you can prove your beliefs to me... you can make a good faith argument, etc., and no doubt many people would hear/read it and agree with you, but...

you can't actually prove it...

And, if you really wanted to prove it, passionately, many folks would assume your passion was clouding your judgement.

And check this out, if there were anomalies, that you couldn't explain, you'd very probably not frame your entire presentation of your beliefs around these anomalies, but would instead try to minimise them. It's called presenting your case. We ALLLLLL do this.

I could also add that the people most concerned with the economic impact of "moderating human behaviour" have done some pretty dishonest stuff as well... from big oil, to big business. And for some reason the moral crusaders in the "anti-man-made-global-warming" camp don't go out of their way to point this out. Because it suits them. Because covering up the evidence of their side's immoral behaviour helps them.

Sounds like some climate scientists I know.

There is a direct relationship between the weather on the sun and the weather here on Earth.

The proof that you ask for is on the way. My guess is that it will be here in less than 2 years.

---------
When the truth is revealed Al Gore will be forced to return his ill-gotten gains.

The excuse from the scientists will be the truth.

"We were paid $$$ billions to cherry pick the data and deceive the general public."
"Yes, we ignored the sun. It kept getting in the way of our agenda."

edit on 25-11-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)

I think that's a very glib reading of what's been going on. I also think that whatever correlation there is between the sun and the earth's weather, there's still room for other factors to affect climate. We've seen things like deforestation change micro-climates, for instances, and no one doubts if the entire planet were reforested the climate would change... in fact there's MANY people that argue against global warming that also claimed that the GOM oil spills would affect the climate. People's beliefs drive their "critical thinking".

My point is quite simple: there's scant evidence of wide-spread or orchestrated corruption in climate science. In fact there's much LESS evidence for that, than there is for humans' ability to, to some degree, affect global climate conditions... most of the folks arguing this point, that there's a cabal orchestrating climate change as part of a larger control or depopulation agenda also share a political viewpoint.

I'm embarrassed to even be REPLYING to this nonsense.

Climate Gate 1.0 was basically, some Koch brothers funded goons sneaking around every climate university research project hunting for SOMETHING they could misconstrue.

They found some emails about "outlier data." Since we've got a society that doesn't understand statistics for the most part -- REMOVING data from a study just smacks of "fixing the facts." IN fact, however -- no it doesn't. It's like removing a dead baby from statistics about which city in the country produces the best basketball players.

If that doesn't make SENSE to you; "Why would a premature death of a baby would even be included in stats about basketball players" -- Congratulations; you have the making of a statistician!

If you did not know that the early "Climategate" and emails they uncovered, were categorically discredited, and that the hackers were traced back to Koch and that the Climate Model in question was PROVEN ACCURATE -- then you can be forgiven; our media didn't make it that public that they were totally duped again. This used to be called a "retraction." Now it's called a footnote.


>> Climategate 2.0 -- I will not bother reading. It is a complete waste of time. Likely, the same dumpster diving people rooting around in computers that they should be arrested for snooping into, have learned a few new tricks and figured out what they did wrong the last time -- just like the 2nd round of "Climate Scientists who refute climate change" actually had living people who knew they singed it (this time).

Why would anyone go back to the poisoned well, and believe a group that lied the first time?

There are so many valid sources of information there is no REASON to bother going back to any source that you caught in a lie. One intentional lie means that you are dealing with deceitful people.

>> And anyone going back to "ClimateGate 2.0" is a fool -- because ClimateGate 1.0 was a complete fraud. By the way, the Koch brothers funded research with an independent group to figure out why Million-dollar homes in Corpus Christ Texas were getting flooded; they came back with the simple solution; due to Global Warming, the ocean is rising -- and it does so in different parts of the ocean first.

We should be acting on the research and we should be moving forward with a plan to discard fossil fuels -- and yet we've got fools arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic. You can have mine -- I don't care what color it is.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

This is just what they were prepared to put down in writing and havn't managed to delete - but it clearly shows that these people were not just 'doing science', they were activists working for a cause!

Scientists should be dedicated, even passionate, but by definition they need to be focused on empirical science, rational analysis and facts. By cherry-picking data -- promoting that which suits their cause and downplaying or ignoring that which doesn't -- scientists have been doing more than simply putting a gloss on their work. Some have conscripted their work into advocacy to shape the public's views about climate. In the 5000 leaked emails there is a range of exchanges between scientists, from unsurprising professional rivalry to justifiable efforts to win publicity for projects. But it is clear that time and again they cross the line. A phrase such as "we're choosing the periods to show warming" cannot look benign in any context. Or an email suggesting data might be selected not on its merits but on its conclusions; "paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW (global warming) is having an effect on TC (tropical cyclone) activity." There are references to "the cause" and notes such as "thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming".

www.theaustralian.com.au...




And here is the 'cause' they were working for:

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives.

But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness',

green-agenda.com...

Again, a few lines from emails out of context and a link to an anti-environmental-movement blog isn't hugely convincing. If I were to go through ANY large group's email and pull out 25 sentences I could "prove" almost anything. On top of all of that, some of these folks may be willing to push boundaries to try and "prove" something, but that doesn't in anyway mean the thing they're trying to prove is inaccurate.

As far as the COR is concerned, I'd suggest the biggest threat to the US population isn't some fantasy genocide, but is in fact big business (who creates all the health care and food regulations which the US gov't writes).

Why s the US population dying so young? It's not vaccinations (those exist in countries with much longer average life-spans ) or the environmental movement (the US is hardly controlled by lefties). It's got much more to do with corporations running every aspect of the US "system," from food to healthcare. Not an imagined conspiracy of genocidal environmentalists and climate scientists.

Nice try at deflection and denial - so, yes the emails do reveal people with a 'cause' to promote and bending the datat o fit it.

The Green agenda is not an 'anti-environmental blog' - it is an expose of the Club of Rome's agenda - it's secretive membership of billionaires and Politicians - (you know, those nasty 1% ers) whose real agenda is ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!

green-agenda.com...

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

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.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Eurisko2012

 

Sorry, but I'm not really sure that makes any sense at all.

1) There is plenty of actual evidence, sure there's some issues, but there's more evidence for global warming than things like gravity. And no, that's not hyperbole. The issues come in when you start to define how much is caused by humanity, is it all just part of natural cycles, can we affect changes by moderating our behaviour etc.

2) Getting humanity to switch to alternative fuels, or to moderate consumption isn't about top down control, it's about self-control. Humanity, esp in the West, has long had issues with self-destruction. Trying to find a way o avoid collapse through moderating our activity is simply one way to try and prevent collapse. Is that a "lie"...well... maybe, just maybe it's "environmental paranoia"; more akin to the Obama is a secret-Kenyan hysteria than to a top-down desire to control.

3) Finally, as far as "faith" is concerned, both sides are going on faith that their belief is correct. As I said in point one, there's a lot of evidence of actual change, but we have to decide how to interpret that evidence and what our belief is, regarding the evidence and how we should react to it, if at all. No one is free from that; not those on the left, or the right or the politically and socially agnostic.

Sorry, but you've missed the point of the debate entirely.

No one claims the climate is NOT changing.
No one claims that CO2 emissions have grown tremedously since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

The AGW debate is whether "the science is settled" that man is the greater cause of the observed changes.

The simple fact is that even Phil Jones' and the IPCC's best argument in favor of AGW is: "we don't know what else it could be, so it must be us."

This is the heart of the debate.

That makes their manipulation of data, refusal to disclose, destruction of information and outright lying a relevant, even vital, element of the final analysis.

If you do not understand this yet, you need to start over from the beginning.

jw

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


When the truth is revealed Al Gore will be forced to return his ill-gotten gains.


Jesus.
H.
Christ.


Don't bother with someone who made a quote like that. Blaming Al Gore for "Climate Science" is like blaming Carl Segan for the discovery of the Oort Cloud. NO, Carl Sagan is just a man who popularized and promoted what Astronomers were already saying. Al Gore's profit, non-profit, or using airplanes to get to conferences has NOTHING do with the science... and anyone mentioning the Sun as if nobody noticed that before -- words fail me. I cannot understand why such people aren't under doctors supervision or allowed sharp objects. Earth is a closed system -- so that means, anything like a .1% increase in Carbon Dioxide (which remains in the atmosphere over 100 years), means that eventually, ANY long term increase is eventually going to totally change the ecosystem.

The entire "unofficial carbon credits" that Al Gore buys into, is about the rounding error on one day of Oil Industry profits. For some reason, people who try and SPEAK THE TRUTH have to walk on water and cannot make money to feed their kids -- nor can they sell books. However; those who profit from death; Oil and Gas company executives, and weapons dealers, seem to somehow be wrapped in a cocoon of credibility; they are CAPITALISTS!

The Coal and Oil industries, might have employed about 100,000 people in this country -- almost as many people have a job due to their beneficence as are employed in medicine and drawing their last breathes at hospitals BECAUSE of our use of these toxic substances. If Obama would just scrap any pollution regulation; we could employe another 200,000 people -- just in medicine alone.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Al Gore has $$$ cashed in on the Global Warming Hoax.

50 years from now people will be reading the Wikipedia page on Al Gore and they will
be laughing out loud.

Oh yeah, that's the Inconvenient Truth guy who frightened children with Global Warming BS.
Shame on him. Thank God the truth finally came out and set us free.