Climate Gate 2.00 : Shocking Corruption Revealed in Emails!

reply to post by beckybecky


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...

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

Who'd I rather trust:

1) Corporations
2) Politicians
3) Scientists

-- to me that's easy: scientists.

You fail seeing the obvious because there
is nothing to trust if
1.
2.
are paying
3.
to say what 1. and 2. want them to say...

Which is that we need a cap and trade carbon tax
because *there data* shows we are heating up the earth..

Actually, I think the world would be a better place if it was all tropical
again..

Might need to move a few major cities ect. over time but
I am all for it being a constant 70-75 degrees in the winter in Canada... eh

The Climatologists are merely presenting the data. "Cap and Trade" as you call it, is something that some political groups in the USA are suggesting based on what has been done in Europe.
Cap and Trade is Not GREAT in my opinion -- but it has reduced pollution in Europe.

Personally, I'd like to see the Koch brothers spend 3 months in a public stockade, then, bereft of money and power, dropped in Darfur with a cup and a spoon. I'd like to see this country become more Socialist -- and not be embarrassed about it, because it worked after FDR.

I could imagine a new economic system, where, instead of giving BANKS new money for their deposits -- we just give every citizen and certain Stipend, and let the FREE Market coax the money out of them for growth. We end our current patent system, and use something like Wikipedia to track all new inventions and copyright, and then we would give those people NEW MONEY, based on how often some company used their ideas -- because ALL NEW growth is probably based on new ideas -- not on repeating the old ones.


>> I can see a solution to all of the great problems in this world -- but NONE of them are possible with Communists or Capitalists -- solutions are not possible when there is so much profit from pollution, lies, and war. Our country has been run by war profiteers and bankers for far too long -- and the moronic anti-science climate denying comments I read hear, are merely a byproduct of Fascism.

reply to post by jdub297


I'm in the heating and cooling industry so I'm well versed in the cfc mess.

They made us ditch freon for the new cfc's (which are conveniently covered by patents) saying it was making the hole bigger. So the industry had to spend billions retooling.

Then a few years ago they came out with a study that was largely ignored by the MSM saying the new CFC's were twice as harmful as freon was. That doesn't even factor in that freon is much more efficient, meaning it takes less energy to provide the same cooling.

On top of that it actually caused deaths in the 3rd world. 99.99% of the refridgeration in the 3rd world was freon based, so as those units went down they couldn't get freon for them and they became useless. Since they couldn't afford to replace the units they just lost the ability to keep things like vaccines and other medicines cold.
Of course they lost the ability to freeze foods also.

It's kneejerk environmental lunacy.

Can't anybody use "big picture" thinking anymore?

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.

Huh? Well do you understand the economics involved with the Carbon Credit scheme :who will benefit and what impacts it will have on the world economy especially on the poor? And when I say, the poor, I mean on the third world where people are starving to death, literally.

Higher energy prices which the Global Warming agenda causes and the implementation of Carbon Credit taxes will kill a great many people around the world. It will create a holocaust among the weakest among us.

What do you have to say about your, "tools" in that regard? Your greenhouse gas scheme is a modern gas chamber without the need of ghettos, trains, and camps.

Originally posted by ladykenzie
This thread should be on the front page IMO.

Are people (not specifically ATSers, people in general) scared to get near this because they feel that if they question the whole 'climate change' thing, they're somehow anti-environment or something?

The British gov't investigation after the last set of emails released proved that the scientist did nothing wrong, and the congressional investigation in the US found no wrong doing either. We could have a copy of there plan book talking in explicet details about how they are faking details and they would still be found blameless.

The gov't will never act on this info and the masses will never read the emails just like last time, they will be spoon fed by there favorite tv host who tells them it's the nasty deniers who are taking things out of context.

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by beckybecky

 

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...

Oh my god, you just won the most ignorant statement of the year award. Did you even read your post? Do you even listen to your self talk or do you just talk because you like to here your own voice?

By your logic... I know that kids where molested all over the country yesterday (my computer model predicted it). No one knows who it was who did it, but the risks to children are not worth taking so we should have the police take you into costudy just to be safe.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious

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.

Since the same scientist who were accused of corruption made up the committy that reviewed the emails after the first set got released and since they claimed that no they didn't do anything wrong your argument is based on evidence that is in itself biased or corrupt.

That is like saying we'll allow a suspected murderer to be the judge at his own trial. You would never do it in this day and age but yet we allowed it to happen in the case of the climate researchers.

People keep repeating that there is an 'overwhelming scientific consensus' because that is what the media has drummed onto them: - the true believers might be surprised to learn just how they arrived at their figures.

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. [1] To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim. This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it.

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by exile1981


Thank you for your reply and yes I did read my own post. Although sometimes I am so smart I do not understand what I have written.
Really though your statement makes little sense. How would your computer model help anyone. Yes children get molested, but by arresting every male will not help. It will facilitate the breakdown of society. The ends in your case does not justify the means.
However in the case of global warming. Reducing greenhouse gasses will not facilitate the breakdown of society. It may in some aspects slow it down. But that is not going to kill us.
So regardless if greenhouse gasses are causing climate change. It does not hurt to reduce them. The risk is far to great to take...
It is known as the precautionary principle and in environmental cases like this should be applied. The problem is that there are people out there pushing all sorts of misinformation. The reason being because they want to put industry first. Simple short term greed.....

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies

evidently you are not a scientist. That is how sciences endorses itself. It is the process of peer review.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos

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.

Quoted for truth!

I love how the message is spun that it is either your wallet being empty and a clean world! Can't these folks who are lined up behind the oil companies realize that they, Big Oil, only wants to make $ by bending us all over?

We're to be stewards of this planet, how hard is it to see that the Brown Asian Cloud isn't helping the world one iota?

Derek

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies

evidently you are not a scientist. That is how sciences endorses itself. It is the process of peer review.

Right, it is the process of peer review, obviously.
I think you misunderstood though.
JohhnyBGood's point was that they counted every person who reviewed any part of it as an AGW believer, even though a large number of those actually did not endorse the theory; in fact, many of them vehemently disagreed.
The numbers were manipulated and falsely represented.

reply to post by ladykenzie

in fact, many of them vehemently disagreed.

put you money where you mouth is. show me some of the papers they produced to disagree with the theory. it sounds like heresay to me....

reply to post by purplemer

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...

Ah, the last bastion... "Well... this stuff is for the best, anyway, so it's all good."

Unfortunately, "renewable" energy isn't really all that ideal, for a number of reasons. With the exception of hydro-electric dams and geothermal, all forms of "renewable" energy tend to be sporadic in nature and highly localized. They require massive amounts of supporting infrastructure for power storage, regulation, and switching to compatible electrical standards (unless you plan to completely overhaul the transmission system). Further, wind turbines are just not going to be effective in some regions, and solar is going to not work out so well in other regions (the same with geothermal and hydro-electric).

Geothermal and hydro-electric power stations are, to be blunt, the most practical of renewable resource technologies. Environmentalists, however, throw a #-fit over damming up rivers (and, once again, these dams only really work in areas where you have steep hills/mountains to allow the formation of a lake without having to, literally, build said mountains). Geothermal seems to be largely ignored, but I believe part of that is because the drilling technology used to set up those stations and the limitations to regions of thinner crust are large factors in this.

"So, it's challenging. That's why we need to start making efforts now and stop making excuses!"

You're putting the cart before the horse.

I am all for a society that meets most of its energy needs off of "renewable" sources. There are, however, several factors that are not related to how we generate power that largely affect the practicality of generating power.

Most of the energy we use in our homes goes to two things - climate control and lighting. When it's cold, we are busy burning energy (in some form) to heat the thing up; and when it's warm, we are burning energy to pump the heat outside and circulate air.

Home construction needs to be seriously reconsidered. From many standpoints, a building that sits above ground makes very little sense. It is far more vulnerable to natural forces and, regardless of how well insulated it is, will often be too warm or too cold for the occupants' comfort. Put a house underground and use systems similar to fiber optics to transfer natural daylight into the structure. Advances in LED technology (OLED and its successor - Quantum Dot LED) will allow these same systems to be augmented by energy-efficient artificial lighting.

That, there, will reduce any population's energy consumption considerably when compared to our current living standards.

The other major aspect is transportation. This is more easily resolved in large urban centers; where we can see massive underground cities, interlinked by moving sidewalks and conveyor belts for goods, replacing the current urban landscape. Such systems would be designed so that walking is the primary form of transportation and movement of people and supplies can be kept to a minimum.

However, all of this takes time. The best way to help spur things forward is to create a construction business specialized in such architectural designs and concepts - and to market/advertise the advantages to companies, hotel/apartment owners, and individual home owners. As energy costs rise (and they will as time goes on - regardless of how much comes from "renewable" resources), the selling points of those structures become much more persuasive. Take pride in those designs and make them both functional and comfortable (as well as affordable) - and there's no reason for them not to become a hit.

After that, the prospect of powering your refrigerator, oven, computers, and a few lights off of solar power becomes much more realistic. In larger scale applications - the energy needs and applications change to become more suitable for renewable sources. And with that - you can change the face of society for a thousand years to come without ever having to pass a law, speak to a congressman, or blame changing climate conditions on anyone or anything.

Of course, if you did, you'd become quite wealthy by virtue of running a successful business that provided something useful. OWS would show up and ran-sack your house and rob your bank. That is if you could avoid getting regulated out of existence by Congress. God knows, they'd have a conniption fit over all of the new materials and technologies I would use in building such homes (that are not commonly used for building homes; perfectly safe and sensible - just not standard or in one of their books of good/bad/pork).

wattsupwiththat.com...

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.

The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony. “Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

What does it really take to convince people that they have been had!? - that just because MSM is soaking them in it 24/7 that they are actually being lied to!

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

What does it really take to convince people that they have been had!?

Some facts would be a good start as opposed to hot air. As for all your scientists that oppose global warming. I studied with them and I now work with them. I know some that sit on the fence, but the general consensus is that the climate change is anthropogenic in nature...

reply to post by Aim64C


Thank you for your reply. I agree with many of the points you have made and it is essential that we do not put all the eggs in one basket. The tech could be a lot better but we have to start somewhere and in recent years it has moved leaps and bounds.
Housing does account for some of the energy use and yes it is important to increase energy efficiency in the home. But the biggest usage is industry and that is not going to change until we get our heads around the fact that capitalism and environmental sustainability do not mix. We cannot have infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. Something has to give..

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by JohhnyBGood

 

they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies

evidently you are not a scientist. That is how sciences endorses itself. It is the process of peer review.

I can peer review studies (and I have) and say that I see no obvious problems with the methodology, that does not mean I endorse them.

In fact last fall I reviewed a paper written by a co-worker and while I disagreed with the conclusion he had drawn (I though the root cause of the incident was something different), we did agree on the outcome of the incident and he published the paper and presented it last february at a conference. In no way does that mean I agree with it just that I reviewed it and found the actual raw data to be correct.

reply to post by exile1981


If there is a strong discontent of a theory it will be will reflected in future works. So I am asking someone to provide me with the evidence that this is the case... and nobody will.