- Site Admin
- Posts: 840
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
ClimateGate Who's Who ~ by MagicJavaTV
ClimateGate, as it's come to be known, is a very difficult issue to deal with, not because of the nature of the information, but due to the way in which it was obtained. The long and the short of it is, someone hacked into a server containing certain documents and emails and has now made the contents thereof public.
The video linked here contains short snippets of those emails and documents in an attempt to display the nature of the scientists and the science used to justify claims of Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW).
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:46 pm
For example, "tricks" in context can mean "very clever solutions to a problem" and not "deceit."
For example, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... S%2FAho%3D
Is there an argument that global warming (and only an idiot or a willful ignoramus would deny that's happening--ask the military planners of the US, Russia, the UK etc) is not SOLELY man-made? Yes, and a good one.Skeptics have been pointing to one email from Kevin Trenberth, in which he said, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." However, this is clear example of cherrypicking quotes. Trenberth was referring to that there was an "incomplete explanation" of the short-term variability of temperatures, but concludes that "global warming is unequivocally happening."
Yet the processes are additive, and not either/or. This should not be an amazing revelation to anyone pretending to care about science, truth, or common sense. Show me that hydrocarbons do NOT in any way interact with the atmosphere, and then you've got something. Until then you've got magic or a personal issue.
Please, please, please, dissociate Thunderbolts from these kinds of fraud.
- Site Admin
- Posts: 840
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
- Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
For example, the "trick" was used in the context of "to hide the decline" and as such is not as innocent as you would make out.
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:06 am
On Getting Scientific Information From the Huffington Post
I'll offer the suggestion that The Huffington Post is a poor place to turn for scientific information. If you want to judge the quotes I've selected, you can download the zip file and then use the ClimateGate Who's Who References video I've provided to look up each quote. A link to the Who's Who References video is at the end of the Who's Who video. The zip file can be found here: http://www.filedropper.com/foi2009
My Quotes of Mr. Trenberth
As to the specific quote you mention from the Huffington Post, I included the part where Mr. Trenberth says he believes the difference between the models and the data is due to bad data. I even highlighted that part in the video. But that's a _belief_ on Mr. Trenberth's part. Not a fact. He _believes_ more data would validate the theory. But you don't build science around facts that aren't there.
On the Hacked Files Being Fakes or Edited
There is no known case of editing the files or evidence the files were fakes. Prof Jones, who has stepped down from his position, even admitted the files were genuine.
Man-made CO2 Global Warming
As to the theory of CO2 Global Warming, it depends critically on water vapor causing the majority of the warming in a feedback loop. Without that extra heat coming from water vapor, the theory of man-made CO2 causing warming collapses completely. This is because CO2 is both a trace gas that is in the atmosphere in very small amounts and is also a fairly weak greenhouse gas. CO2 alone is not enough to cause the warming being claimed. Water vapor is _required_ to boost the effects of CO2. What I'm telling you here in this paragraph is mainstream AGW theory.
The problem with that is our understanding of cloud formation is no where near complete. If a small percentage of the water vapor from CO2 warming forms clouds then we will get cooling due to the clouds reflecting sunlight into space, not warming. (And, btw, the hacked e-mails also show the scientists don't know if this is happening or not, and therefore don't know if their own theory of CO2 warming actually works.)
Relationship of ClimateGate to Thunderbolts
Finally, I absolutely believe what's happening with ClimateGate is related to what the folks here at ThunderBolts are doing. It's one thing to claim on your website that science isn't being done properly and the mainstream media is not reporting it. It's quite another to see it unfold before your very eyes. And if you don't think that's what's happening then I'll once again encourage you to download those hacked files and read them for yourself.
- Posts: 631
- Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:54 pm
Regardless, the programming notes are most revealing. Here's a sample of a couple of them:
"APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE"
Many programmers, since the release of the files, have said that the code is a mess.I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight. Look at this:
Not only is the code all buggered, but the datasets used by the code are quite messy.
It's obvious from their emails that they were actively controlling the peer-review process, "hiding" from FOI requests in a number of ways and otherwise doing what they could to massage the data to fit their theory of human caused warming.
They loudly declared that CO2 causes the shells of crustaceans to dissolve and that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas.
Problem is, they're LYING. They never had any studies proving the voracity of those declarations. Just fearmongering.
Now there are a couple of recent studies published, proving they are LIARS.
In Carbon Dioxide-Rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production
Dozen Lesser-Known Chemicals Have Strong Impact on Climate Change
Ya see, jpt, I'm an environmentalist. I practice sustainable permaculture. I've been pissed for many years that all the things us enviro's had been working on, actual toxic pollution, deforestation, biodiversity, etc., has been hijacked by the CO2 AGW fearmongers, which is all the enviro groups seem to be focusing on these days. Organizations like Greenpeace and the WWF have lost my support because they dropped the ball on all those important issues while being led by the nose by twits like Jones, Mann, Briffa, Hansen, et al.
Since you brought up funding, Jones alone has received around $19,000,000 in grants from 2000 - 2006. Mostly from government, i.e. YOUR tax dollars.
I'm not a fan of the petro-chemical industry by any means, but one figure I saw was that ExxonMobil donated $175,000 in one year, between just two AGW skeptical organizations.
That's another lie, that skeptics are bought and paid for by the oil industry.
Well, I'm a skeptic, and by choice I have not even owned a vehicle for about ten years.
I think there are aspects of "climategate" that are quite relevant to EU theory. Just ask Halton Arp about his experiences, or any of a number of EU/PC scientists who can't, or couldn't, get published in the "proper" peer-reviewed journals. Even Nobel Prize laurette Hannes Alfven had issues with the dogmatic peer-review process.
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am
Obviously, jpt has not been reading the forum and the other Electric Universe websites as he would have known that it is a longstanding position of Electric Universe theorists that AGW is a problematic hypothesis.
jpt's statements are the usual talking points in defense of the indefensible AGW e-mail, computer program, and peer-reviewed journal scandal.
This is serious business (AGW proponents know their ideology has taken a serious hit, if not a fatal one), so the AGW proponents have fanned out to cover all the bases possible. Most likely jpt saw this website on some search engine as hosting this particlular YouTube video.
His claims are laughable and demonstratably false upon examination of the record.
But that doesn't stop them from pushing their defense, hoping to salvage people only vaguely aware of the scandal and on the fence (hoping to push them back into the AGW camp).
That jpt would make such claims in a forum so familiar with academic skulduggery suggests they are desperate in their attempt to limit the damage.
The AGW messengers are just as corrupt as the AGW leaders (or horribly brainwashed).
The serious corporate money has already left the station and bet on AGW mostly to curry favor and hatch carbon trading credit schemes (to their liking) that would make Enron green with envy. Interestingly enough, even the oil companies have contributed more to AGW coffers than to sceptics (they bet wrong on the science & politics).
Don't kid yourself, this has been a major spanner in the works for many elites in corporate America and elsewhere in the world (can you spell insider trading and "sweet" deals for the well connected).
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:28 pm
THE government’s chief scientific adviser on climate change has proposed a quadrupling of Britain’s nuclear power generation to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.
Professor David MacKay believes nuclear power could be the only way Britain can meet its soaring demand for electricity while keeping emissions under control.
He has calculated that renewable energy sources such as wind and tidal power will never provide more than a fraction of Britain’s electricity needs. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 860181.ece
Plans to fast-track a new generation of nuclear power stations are set to be unveiled tomorrow by the Government.
Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband will announce a series of national policy statements which will include a list of sites deemed suitable for new nuclear developments.
Under changes to the planning laws, the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) will be able to speed through the proposals for new schemes if it decides they fit in with the policy statements.
That would contrast with examples such as the six-year struggle to steer the Sizewell B power station through the planning process, and is likely to encourage foreign firms such as E.ON, RWE npower and EDF to produce a new fleet of UK power stations that could be up and running by 2017.
Alongside nuclear power, the Government will issue draft policy statements setting out the national need for new energy infrastructure including renewables, fossil fuels, gas and infrastructure, as well as an overarching energy statement.
Green groups expressed dismay at the prospect of new nuclear power and warned the Government could be open to legal challenge if the statements do not properly consider climate change.
They have also raised concerns that people will not be able to influence decisions on major projects because schemes covered by the statements will not be subject to public inquiry. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 17222.html
The government is poised to allow nuclear power generators to use ordinary landfill sites for dumping "hundreds of thousands of tons" of waste in an attempt to reduce the £73bn cost of decommissioning old reactors.
The move has triggered a swath of applications around the country from big corporations trying to cash in on this potential new business, but has infuriated local councils and campaign groups. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ill-threat
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Senators on Monday unveiled bipartisan legislation aimed at doubling nuclear power in 20 years and increasing funding for research into low carbon sources of energy.
Sponsored by Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander and Virginia Democrat Jim Webb, the bill would provide $100 billion in loan guarantees for carbon-free electricity projects, adding to the existing $47 billion loan guarantee program. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/ ... .html?_r=3
FRANKFURT - Germany's nuclear power policy of keeping old reactors open longer to bridge the gap to greener energy may also leave the door open to eventually break a major electoral taboo -- new atomic power plants.
Chancellor Angela Merkel's new center-right government last week kept nuclear energy alive but stressed that would only be until renewable energies are fully viable. Popular opposition to nuclear is strong and visceral.
A total of 17 reactors had faced closure in the coming decade but can now expect a new lease of life. http://planetark.org/wen/55358
Nuclear energy is seen by some countries as an effective way to keep up electricity supplies while cutting emissions of climate warming gases from burning fossil fuels.
Lingering concerns over nuclear safety, waste and costs have limited the sector's growth in western Europe but several central and eastern European countries are keen to build them as a way of reducing their reliance on imported fuels.
Below are the nuclear plants being built or planned across Europe: http://planetark.org/wen/55368
Research to develop genetically modified crops must be stepped up as part of a £2bn "grand challenge" to avoid future food shortages, an influential panel of scientists said yesterday. In its report, the Royal Society said that GM techniques would be needed to boost yields and help crops survive harsher climates, as the global population rises and global warming worsens. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... earch-food
GM crops have a role to play in preventing mass starvation across the world caused by a combination of climate change and rapid population growth, a senior government scientist said yesterday.
Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), called for UK trials of GM foods, arguing that the Government needs to be more open with the public about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods.
"Over the next 20 to 50 years, the population is going to increase from 6.5 to 9 billion. There will be more extreme weather, more demand for food, meat, and water, a changing climate: it is a very challenging situation, which, if we don't deal with it, could become a nightmare scenario," said Professor Watson. "We have to look at all the technologies, policies and practices, all forms of bio-tech, including GM." http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 23219.html
Al Gore has faced criticism for talking up climate change without offering answers. Does his new book remedy that?
...I have the feeling that Gore judged (correctly) that, despite the high profile of the issue in recent years, a high level of public confusion and ignorance still prevails.
The material in the book covers all the basics, but also takes the reader into some of the more nuanced debates that lie behind the headlines that increasingly bombard us on this sprawling subject.
Although there is still a rump of denial about the reality of human-induced climate change, this book reflects the shift in the debate in recent years towards what we do about the problem, rather than whether we have one. That said, and although we have the technologies and information needed to make change, few of the choices are straightforward, and many are still contested. But because it lays out the issues clearly and in some depth, I expect this book to be influential in shaping the policies that we choose.
Gore presents his judgments on where the right choices lie. For example, he backs genetically modified crops as a way of boosting the productivity of biofuels, while casting doubt about the viability of carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). I would present the opposite case, however, putting hope in CCS while expressing continuing doubt about the potential for genetic modification. Yet I do agree with Gore�s scepticism about the role of nuclear power.
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens ... 08006.html
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
- Location: Sooke, BC, Canada
http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.p ... eory_Wrong
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, has been blasting Gore for a few years now, and there are lots of videos out there if you do a search.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe= ... CEoQ1QIoBA
The problem seems to be that the MSM are all in collusion to not air/print the opposing beliefs.
- Posts: 2477
- Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
- Location: NW UK
Excellent post. I've been banging on about the nuclear power angle for several years. No one listens to me as I don't wear a shirt and tie and I'm not on the TV.
P.S. I'll be emailing your links to some of my right-on, pc, friends.
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:28 pm
and thanks, Grey Cloud. i'd been noticing that for a little while but the full scope of it only struck me as they recently intensified their rhetoric. it really goes to show the lack of critical thinking most people have on these matters.
- Posts: 1405
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am
Everyone's a critic...
I'll briefly summarise it tho!
CO2 isn't the problem the government's have made it out to be. I think it's just a ruse that they are using to get the world population behind their idea of changing the foundation of the world economy from oil (which they don't control) to something else (which they think they might be able to control!) I dunno how it is in other countries, but re-tooling the economy in the U.S. stands to make for quite a few jobs and open the doors to a whole new breed of entrepeneurs.
It could be a very good thing... except for that 'carbon credit' crap. However, I don't see the carbon credits being what they think it will be for them. Those pieces of fluff won't have any more value than the junk bonds that almost sunk the insurance industry back in the 80's. Or the recent bubble pop of over-inflated real estate values.
The big thing, I think, is that government's are getting very concerned that there are now more corporations on the Top 100 Economic Entities List than there are governments now- 51:49 in favor of the Corps! *shudder*
Corporations are now big enough to block governmental investments, for crying out loud! That is power with no responsibility to any constituents (other than Wall Street, and they're just Avatars of Greed without limit). That is what prompted this big sham, in my humble opinion. The scientists were just on the payroll. The governments of the world are simply scared, in my opinion, and this is how they reacted in desperation. Do I think it justifies the dishonesty?
Do I think it is moral? Ethical?
Well... that gets a bit trickier, doesn't it? Is the despoiling of the only home we have (Earth) moral?? Ethical?? When you consider what shape this planet will be in if we continue on as we have, blithely ignoring what all the environmentalists have been saying all these years (kudos to you, Sol!), and uncaringly turn to our sons and daughters and say "Here's the keys, kid! She's all yours now..."
I speak for no one else nor wish to preach, but I myself cannot face that prospect without shame and a complete loss of my dignity. I feel the need to do something about it, and right now it seems to me that the ecological facade over their attempt to re-create the global economy in a way that they can control is the lesser of two evils, pure and simple. I'd love to see a better solution, but currently I don't see anything else on the table that is anywhere near fruition, and the ecology of our planet is not going to 'get better' simply because the planet starts to cool off of it's own accord!
I do not believe that CO2 is our pressing concern- I think this planet was a CO2 nightmare that our plant life originally adapted to and created the balanced carbon-oxygen environment that saw the rise of fauna on this world. (No, I can't prove that but I think it's a neat idea and well within the bounds of intelligent conjecture!) I think that our most pressing environmental concern is the "re-greening" of our planet- to re-plant and re-grow the oxygen-producing life on this planet that can absorb all that carbon and scrub our air clean again.
Warming? That's beyond our control, and it will balance itself out if it hasn't already begun. What WE need to do is balance our our eco-systems again! That is the direction that the world needs to turn it's involvement!
But I digress (again, sorry). Still- this farce that the world's governments have created has done something good- it shook a lot of the world population out of it's self-centered obsessing and made people blink their eyes and realize that there was so much more going on in the world than what they were allowing themselves to perceive. Heck- it may have even become a rallying cry for some unification of ideals amongst diverse peoples... who knows?
I think there is a silver lining of the dark cloud to this whole fiasco. I think (regardless of the intent) that this will serve as a wake-up call to an entire living generation of humanity... maybe take their blinders off that they were born and raised with, and make them see the intrinsic spiritual and psychological value of reciprocating some service back to the planet that has served us as our homeworld.
With every tree I have planted, with every stream and lakeshore cleanup project I have participated in, I have felt *good* inside; it makes ME feel healthy... there is something natural about taking care of the world!
I want to leave a legacy of good stewardship and love of this old Earth, and a sense of brotherhood and love for her diverse peoples, for my children. I think that there are much worse legacies to leave behind than a desire to be of service to the world that sustains us, and the peoples who share in that task.
With due consideration and respect to any and all those holding opinions different than my own, and best wishes for a joyous New Year,
P.S.- Did I say brief summary? o.O
"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
John C notes in this video that global temperatures are correlated with solar sunspot activity. Couple that unpopular observation (with the CO2 warming crowd) with Henrik Svensmark's videos on YouTube regarding his researches on cosmic rays' producing condensation nuclei and therefore lower level clouds and rising temperatures, cosmic ray density correlations with Earth magnetosphere strength, and sunspot activity correlations with magnetosphere efficacy, and it is hard not to see a pattern in all these different phenomena. John C also notes that CO2 has always been present and has gone up and down to much higher and somewhat lower levels as an atmospheric component over time, even with no human beings or industrial activity being present on the planet, claiming to show with graphic correlations that the present change in temperature is so far small and well within the historical excursions in interglacial epochs' temperature swings - i.e., not that unusual; possibly expected.
CO2 is a minor fraction of the global warming gas - water vapor/cloud is a much greater and more effective element. My gripe is that CO2 is being blamed at all, and that global warming is being held up as the bad result which we need to try to control "to save ourselves". There is likely little we can do as a practical matter to control global warming and we waste money with these proposed stunts, not that much different from funding for tokomak fusion and LIGO experiments. What our industrialization and increasing extraction of energy for our own purposes have done, by burning (oxidizing) carbon fuels, is polluted our planet and its atmosphere. Warmed? - maybe a little. Dirtied and fouled? - a lot.
Creating agricultural areas and homesteads by depleting continental rain forests , tropical and temperate, through clear-cut logging and slash and burn practices not only add to pollution but increase flooding and topsoil erosion, while eliminating the filters and lungs of our planet. Why is it so mysterious that there is an increasing rise in diseases and chronic conditions present in all animal life, terrestrial and aquatic, on our planet? Why do so many people suffer from asthma and emphysema, allergies, and heavy metal poisoning? There are a lot of problems in our biosphere which humans have caused which have a lot more to do with our lack of seeing the consequences of our actions, or, seeing them, ignoring them and taking the risks. Unfortunately, we have chosen the riskier path, the one less likely to be survivable or comfortable, not being a species with particularly good risk-analysis capabilities, apparently. We can weather glaciation, as we have seen, but an increasingly poisoned planet with reduced food supplies and dirtier air and ground? A lot more difficult to achieve, I'd bet. What we could use is a global application of clean energy (no or minimal burning), and a lot more care in how we keep our planet clean and pristine and healthy and productive. Along that line, I have pinned some hope on Lerner's group and Focus Fusion as one possible start. Solar and wind & wave energy sources are good but really provide far less than our species demands. Reducing demand is a lot like reducing taxes: ain't gonna happen any time soon, and chances of an increase are much better than a reduction.
-PogoWe have met the enemy, and he is us.
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm
It starts with the video jjohnson listed.
John Coleman, Weather Channel founder
John Coleman on Global Warming
John Coleman slams global warming
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman
This video is a trip.
Al Gore confronted on Climategate in Chicago
The book they mention at the end of the video is, The First Global Revolution, and is available as a PDF here:
The First Global Revolution
Then these are of course the classic videos:
This is the classic response to Al Gore. If you can buy the DVD, the special features have some great science examples.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
This was put out by the "evil CO2 emitters", yet I can't find fault in any of their science.
The Greening of Planet Earth
I remember watching both of those videos on my local PBS station. I haven't seen them for a while since the "consensus" took control.
Then this is the latest video during the Copenhagen meeting.
Lord Christopher Monckton on Climategate
For a clear perspective on Nuclear power read the article by James P. Hogan.
Once you get to this point in the article you reach the heart of what is behind all the Global Warming nonsense.
The future of nuclear power is the thorium fuel cycle.James P. Hogan wrote: Malthusian Nightmares
And here, finally, we come to what the controversy is really all about. In a word, population control. The availability and cheapness of energy is probably the single best measure of the wealth and living standards that a society has attained, and will be reflected in the size to which its population can grow. But not everyone agrees that letting populations grow to the level that advanced technology can support is a good thing. In particular, the empowered and advantaged, whose influence has a lot to say about how the world is run and how the public's perceptions are shaped, would prefer not to see their place in the sun at the top of the social pyramid being crowded by overproducing rabble spilling up from the levels below.
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008
Thorium Fuel Cycle Development in India
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2008/ ... india.html
Wired Jan 2010
Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke
- nick c
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
- Location: connecticut
I agree with James Hogan, population control is the core of the issue. Thomas Malthus hit the nail right on the head. Though increases in productivity have increased standards of living in the industrialized countries keeping Malthusian scenarios at bay, he still lurks in the shadows. And that is why the study of Economics was nicknamed "[url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dismal_science]the Dismal Science[/url2]."
The AGW agents of reform (Al Gore, et al) seem to be hell bent, whether intentional or not, on restoring the human race to a Malthusian world.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests