Is Climate Change really man-made?

[Mr-Bridger]

ClimateGate emails provide unwanted scrutiny of climate scientists
Written by Tony Hake, Climate Change Examiner
Saturday, November 21 2009 10:40


As the contents of a hacked climate change unit’s server in Britain were exposed on the Internet Friday, the event had some of the scientists involved scrambling to explain their emails and skeptics believing they had found a smoking gun. On the surface, the emails seem to indicate scientists modified data to fit the anthropogenic global warming theory, tried to silence dissenting opinions and reflect a concerted effort to restrict access to climate data possibly by deleting it.

The emails and documents were illegally obtained from a server at Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia and then posted to a Russian server. From there, the file and its contents spread like wildfire across the Internet. Inside are over 1,000 emails and dozens of documents that detail private correspondence among some of the world’s top climate scientists.

A spokesman for the university said, “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.” Law enforcement is involved and is trying to track down the person responsible for leaking the emails. Speculation is high that it was an ‘inside job’ as the contents were all targeted toward the science and debate about manmade climate change.

Skeptics of the manmade climate change theory quickly poured over the messages and pointed to what the Australian Herald-Sun called “a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science.” The emails point to a number of questionable actions by the scientists including the modification of data, destruction of data and evidence, collusion, admissions of errors in data and resistance to having their analysis scrutinized by outsiders.

Emails from Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, are arguably the most controversial. In multiple messages the director discusses his resistance to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests even alluding to destroying data rather than sharing it. In one message he says, “I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” Jones apparently considered ways to stymie or limit FOIA requests by “removing station data” and “omit some other countries” because “it would annoy them [those requesting the data].”

Jones also exhorts his colleagues to delete email discussions saying in an email to Michael Mann, “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

The scientists also apparently struggled to account for the cooling the earth has seen over the last 10 years. One scientist, Mick Kelly, discussed giving a presentation and rather than include the cooling he said, “I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Kevin Trenberth, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), was particularly frustrated by computer models that failed to predict the cooling. 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

The group was also did not approve of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and its choices allowing opposing views to be heard. The group’s trade publication, Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) was targeted by Michael Mann as he wrote, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.” He however acknowledged the publications importance saying, “We can’t afford to lose GRL.”

Mann seemed particularly concerned about ‘contrarian’ with the name Saiers, presumably James Saiers of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “Apparently, the contrarians now have an “in” with GRL. This guy Saiers has a prior connection w/ the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences [where Saiers completed his PhD] that causes m some unease,” Mann wrote.

Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division at NCAR, felt though that they could deal with Saiers by getting him removed from the AGU. “If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Some have questioned the authenticity of the emails and documents with the university saying, “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.” Realclimate.org, a website that oftentimes serves as a publicist for many of the scientists, said the messages were ‘possibly edited’ but was unable to cite any examples where that may have occurred.

None of the scientists whose emails were exposed have disputed the contents within the archive. Jones, did not dispute the authenticity of the messages in an interview with TGIF Edition. Kevin Trenberth told Wired that “the email is genuine.” Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University said, "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails." Considering the incendiary nature of the emails one would expect the principles involved would have pointed out any messages that were illegitimate.

The discussion about climate change is at a fevered pitch and these emails and documents will likely damage the cause of those seeking to advance the manmade climate change theory. Those who doubt the theory have had great success this year in getting their voices heard and have been able to demonstrate that the ‘consensus’ in the scientific community on climate change is anything but.

The timing of their release is fortuitous for the skeptics as the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is set to begin next month. Hopes for a treaty from the conference had already been dashed with the UN willing to settle for a ‘political agreement’ rather than a binding agreement.

[item7]

Shock horror. The supporters of AGW are all a bunch of liars. Whatever next? The Tooth Fairy is an invention? Lets have a heated debate about whether the Tooth Fairy exists. I am sure Chek can give as much a defence of her as he has done on behalf of the climate liars. But wait - what's in it for him? Hmmmm....

[item7]

[item7]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategat e-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/

[QuitTheirClogs]

CRU Emails – search engine now online at:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru

see also:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-onl ine/


In this email, Michael Mann explains to Andrew Revkin (NY Times journalist) the importance of controlling the peer review process.


From: Michael Mann
To: Andrew Revkin
Subject: Re: mcintyre's latest....
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:27:25 -0400
Cc: t.osborn

... Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted.

Filename: 1254259645.txt
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1026&filename=1254259 645.txt


Michael E. Mann
Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
Department of Meteorology
The Pennsylvania State University

[chek]

[chek]

[John White]

Nice admission from the Guardian that Icke drives web traffic

Guess the ignoring him thing hasn't worked out so well!

Not helped by Rompuy letting the cat out of the bag about global government today

[Mr-Bridger]

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

By KEITH JOHNSON

The picture that emerges of prominent climate-change scientists from the more than 3,000 documents and emails accessed by hackers and put on the Internet this week is one of professional backbiting and questionable scientific practices. It could undermine the idea that the science of man-made global warming is entirely settled just weeks before a crucial climate-change summit.

Researchers at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, England, were victims of a cyberattack by hackers sometime Thursday. A collection of emails dating back to the mid-1990s as well as scientific documents were splashed across the Internet. University officials confirmed the hacker attack, but couldn't immediately confirm the authenticity of all the documents posted on the Internet.

The publicly posted material includes years of correspondence among leading climate researchers, most of whom participate in the preparation of climate-change reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the authoritative summaries of global climate science that influence policy makers around the world.

The release of the documents comes just weeks before a big climate-change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, meant to lay the groundwork for a new global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change. Momentum for an agreement has been undermined by the economic slump, which has put environmental issues on the back burner in most countries, and by a 10-year cooling trend in global temperatures that runs contrary to many of the dire predictions in climate models such as the IPCC's.

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

The release of the documents has given ammunition to many skeptics of man-made global warming, who for years have argued that the scientific "consensus" was less robust than the official IPCC summaries indicated and that climate researchers systematically ostracized other scientists who presented findings that differed from orthodox views.

Since the hacking, many Web sites catering to climate skeptics have pored over the material and concluded that it shows a concerted effort to distort climate science. Other Web sites catering to climate scientists have dismissed those claims.

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the nonsense out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

[Mr-Bridger]

The Global Carbon Footprint Scam
Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs
Saturday, November 21 2009 17:31


I never cease to marvel at the environmental alarmists who create one “crisis” after another using wretchedly bad “science” to support their scams. On Tuesday, November 24, the Global Footprint Network is going to “release new data on the Ecological Footprint of 100 nations and humanity as a whole, and the current ledgers are sobering.”

Well, of course, they’re sobering. Everything the Greens announce is sobering because, as you well know, the oceans are rising, the glaciers and polar caps are melting, we’re running out of oil, every animal on Earth is endangered, incandescent light bulbs and global warming will destroy all life on Earth, yada, yada, yada.

“The figures provide a data-driven look at some of the most pressing issues facing humanity, from climate change to equitable distribution of resources.”

Is the “equitable distribution of resources” the same as Barack Obama’s “redistribution of wealth”? Is this shorthand of every liberal’s wet dream, communism? Oh, yeah. Been there, seen it, don’t want any part of it. After giving communism a try for over seventy years, the Soviet Union imploded because it doesn’t work, never has, and never will.

After Chairman Mao Zedong introduced communism to China, his various programs managed to kill off several millions through starvation until his death allowed a revision toward capitalism that initiated the transformation that holds out vastly improved lives for its 1.3 billion citizens.

However, according to the Global Footprint Network, “Humanity now requires the resources it would take almost one and a half planets to sustainably produce, according to figures to be released.”

The Greens have an established pattern. They use bogus computer modeling to conjure up scads of “data” that take years to debunk and dispute. In the meantime, billions are wasted on their schemes.

This new hogwash conveniently debuts just before the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Copenhagen in December. The many delegates will wine and dine their way through tons of champagne, caviar, and other delicacies while trying to convince everyone the Earth is doomed unless virtually all industrial activity is ended

They will warn that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are responsible for “global warming”, but there is NO global warming beyond what the Sun provides and CO2 plays no role whatever in climate change.

The phony “carbon footprint” ignores the fact that carbon compounds form the basis for all known life on Earth!

Their bogus “carbon footprints” ignore the fact that CO2 is vital to life because it is to all vegetation what oxygen is to all animals. It is food! More CO2 is better than less because it would provide for more abundant crop yields, healthier forests, and would reduce the spread of deserts.

The “carbon footprint” and the mountains of phony data built around it provides the Global Footprint Network the ability to announce that “The new numbers also reveal a growing disparity between those countries with the largest Ecological Footprints per capita and those with the smallest.” This is their way of saying that nations that produce more food and more commodities have an unfair advantage over those that do not.

It ignores the fact that “poor” nations are famous for despotism, oppression, and corruption, none of which have anything to do with whether they have abundant resources such as oil, natural gas, and coal. It has everything to do with encouraging class or tribal warfare, religious strife, and all the ills common to humanity.

The key to spotting the Big Green Lie is the word “sustainability.”

Sustainability is a subterfuge for the destruction of property rights, a concept so essential to success in America that it is protected by the Constitution.

Wherever you see the word “sustainability”, you know that the Greens are emphasizing “renewable energy” (solar and wind) which cannot begin to compare with oil, natural gas, and coal. Renewable energy is responsible for a mere one percent of all electricity generated in the United States and reliance upon it will leave people in nations such as Great Britain freezing to death in the dark.

The Greens want to replace hydrocarbon fuels with “biofuels” such as ethanol which diverts real food like corn into a useless form of energy that reduces mileage and actually emits more CO2! The Greens want to pack humanity into crowded cities, forbidding people from living in suburbs filled with trees and lawns. They want to reduce vehicle size and encourage the use of electric vehicles.

There is little evidence that the Earth is running out of oil or other sources of energy. Oil not only provides for transportation, but is the basis for fertilizers and other beneficial chemicals that ensure more crop yield to feed humans and livestock. It has a thousand other uses as well. Coal is so abundant that its use is calculated in centuries.

In short, the Greens want to impose the most stupid and evil standards and restrictions on human life. They would drag humanity back to an age when horses and oxen were the modes of transportation and means of agriculture.

This is the goal of the United Nations Climate Change Conference and its treaty to impose a One World Order with its incumbent oppressive government structure to deprive its victims of privacy, dignity, and initiative. And, as history has repeatedly demonstrated, of life itself.

The “carbon footprint”, along with “global warming”, should be consigned to the dustbin of failed and false economic and schemes known as socialism and communism. They are a synonym for suffering and death.




http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-carbon-footprint-sc am.html

[chek]

Well done Mr B.

Two lengthy right-wing rants without a single fact between them.

Incredible!

And here's another equally invaluable insight from Dr. Inferno

"Over the weekend NASA's University of East Anglia has alleged hackers have "stolen and released" a bunch of scientist's emails.

However what makes me deeply suspicious is the complete lack of correspondence with Al Gore in these released emails.
Where are all the emails showing Al Gore's involvement?
Even more bizarrely there is no plotting and planning on how to raise taxes.
I don't see any mention of the socialist new world order that these scientists are trying to bring about. Not once do they talk about how
to best achieve wealth redistribution or world government.

So I have to conclude this this email release is a big con.
It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate leak to make these scientists
look better and to try and silence skeptics who question their motives.
If we are to believe the emails, the scientists don't actually think
their work is in error! But we know they must realize it's all a big con,
so how can these emails possibly be true?

I was expecting something like this:

From: "Michael Mann"
To: "James Hansen"
CC: "Al Gore", &WorldGovernmentDistributionList
Subject: A good idea!
Date: Mon, 21 October 2008 09:15:31

Hail Comrade,

October temperature release draws near.
How about you just reuse the Sept 2008 temperatures?
I figure that way it will make it the warmest October on record!

Al says this will be an excellent move for his stock portfolio.

btw I don't know what to do with all that grant money coming through
my door, it's starting to fill up my front hall.
I bought 5 more Ferraris and a yacht, but it isn't reducing it much.

In Stalin,

Mike

That is the kind of thing I was expecting to find. Blog science and
the Heartland Institute have provided plenty of discussion to lead me
to believe the above kind of emails should exist.

But all I could find was some BS email in which they talked about OctoberGate as if it was just some error in russian data.
They even had the tenacity to add in a note that skeptics wouldn't
believe it was just an error.
A likely story!
It's clear to me that the emails are fake.

-hattip to Baron von Monckhofen who in the previous post's comments suggested what the emails could have contained"

Posted by Inferno

[chek]

[QuitTheirClogs]

Dr Phil Jones: I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.

Filename: 1047388489.txt
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=295&filename=10473884 89.txt

From: Michael E. Mann
To: Phil Jones, rbradley, mhughes, srutherford, tcrowley
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.briffa, jto, keith.alverson, mmaccrac, mann

Thanks Phil,

(Tom: Congrats again!)

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department... The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose'). Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html

In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole...

It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.

There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that couldn't get published in a reputable journal. This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!

So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...

What do others think?
mike


At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:

Dear All,

Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom's old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !

I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at the weekend as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there.

The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't the warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300- 1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.

Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged. I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Cheers
Phil


Dear all,

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !

Cheers
Phil

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
To: p.jones@uea
From: Tim Osborn
Subject: Soon & Baliunas

References
1. http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
3. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
4. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml


For summaries of key CRU emails see:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33. html

[chek]

Ah bless.
It's like you don't know who these characters are, QTC.

If you don't, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are the hired anti-AGW science hands of more than a few of the corporate think tanks and front organisations leading back to Western Fuels and ExxonMobil.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Sallie_L._Baliunas
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Willie_Soon

Why would anyone of honest intent wish to assist corporate jackals attend to their corporate agenda?

Hey, the're an astophysicist and astronomer respectively, but Joe Public thinks all these scientists are the same, so don't worry.

What more do these energy industry shills have to do before the threat to democracy they represent gets taken seriously round here?
Paint an effigy of Moloch on their chests in infant blood?
And why do you think this has happened now in the days before Copenhagen?

OK if that doesn't work, try imagining if they were agents for a Nibaruan invasion - does that make what's going on any more 'real' for you ..

Once again, I don't expect any coherent answers from the copy and paste brigade.

And lest we forget, this is what the deniers are denying:



That's the basis some div here is claiming global cooling "everywhere", because he picks up his stories to plant from the good ol' USA (although obviously not Alaska or Hawaii).
Americans by and large aren't aware the rest of the world exists, you see. Unless they can exploit it, of course.

NASA reports hottest June to October on record*
November 16, 2009
Fast on the heels of the hottest June to September on record*, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that last month was tied for the second hottest October on record (after 2005).

Unlike NOAA, which announced its October global analysis with a major “State of the Climate” monthly update, NASA just quietly updates its data set http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

So you have to do a little math to see that for the June through October period, 2009 now tops both 1998 (easily) and 2005
(*just barely, hence the asterisk).

For NOAA, it was the sixth warmest October on record, and the fifth-warmest January-through-October period.http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/16/nasa-noaa-hottest-june-to -october-on-record/

[QuitTheirClogs]

That’s an extremely hackneyed talking point you’re peddling there, Chek. I thought people had given up trying to push the myth that Big Oil and the global corporations were opposed to the global warming scam. What with Shell et al (1) calling for trillions of dollars to be invested in carbon capture technologies. Here’s two of their lackeys, Hansen and Gingrich, shilling with the same voice:


March 2009: Dr James Hansen pushes for carbon capture and storage; quote:

We must either leave coal in the ground or else capture all of the emissions, including carbon dioxide, and put them back in the ground, which is very difficult to do. So we should not build any more coal-fired power plants that do not capture the carbon dioxide.


Link



April 2009: Newt Gingrich pushes for carbon capture and storage; quote:

Green coal and carbon sequestration is the most important single breakthrough we can make… Enhanced oil recovery -- as a component of carbon sequestration -- could lead to up to a 100 billion barrels of additional oil coming out of existing [US] fields.


Link



(1) Alcoa, Shell Want Climate Plan, Global Carbon Limits – Bloomberg, June 2008
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSGm18AJaMkk


And given that the GW scam is all but busted, shouldn’t you be doom-mongering about Peak Oil or the Population Crisis? How else are you going to get your Brave New World if you don’t keep the proles frightened?

[Andrew.]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

"How else are you going to get your Brave New World if you don’t keep the proles frightened?"

They will use fear but they will also murder too. Like in war's ect.


I'll repeat this.
"Whilst hiding cheap tech. Which i can tell how to make cheaply that would give you electric and run a car. No fuel no pollution. But i'm happy on foot."

(edit)

"calling for trillions of dollars to be invested in carbon capture technologies."

Cost trillions to go green where plants and animals self sustain ?

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[QuitTheirClogs]

My apologies, Chek, for leaving the explanation somewhat unspecified. Carbon dioxide is used in a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 for EOR), but there is a major problem in securing vast quantities of cheap CO2. However, with CO2 now identified as a catastrophically dangerous pollutant, our leaders have agreed to take our money and pay the oil companies to dispose of it for us. The first step is to require all new coal-fired power plants to be fitted with carbon capture technology. And in order to claim public support for this policy, they need legions of concerned-looking young people to protest against electricity generators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_oil_recovery

[Andrew.]

Heating water to over 600 super heated degrees celsius is very wasteful and refrigerants used for some rankine cycle devices although much more efficient have problems. Some are toxic and some are catalysts to what we are discussing (why hasn’t that been put forward more and developed safely rather than heating water).

But go through the gases and you find the one that is most efficient none toxic has the best vapour pressure ratio at our ambient temperature. As it works on ambient temperature there is no transport of/or fuel problems with the self contained power device. Two moving off the shelf parts used extensively in industry. Power to weight and size ratio better than high performance internal combustion engines that doesn’t need refuelling as it’s a closed loop system like a refrigerator.

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[QuitTheirClogs]

A plant operating carbon capture will consume more energy (i.e. coal) than an identical plant operating without carbon capture. Hence the coal industry being happy with CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).

It will also require considerable capital investment, both for capturing the CO2, and for transporting it to the oil fields. Hence the civil engineering industry being happy with CCS.

The technology is still in the vapourware stage (hence the engineering research industry being happy), so nobody has got much of a clue about exactly how much extra energy and how much investment will be involved. But who cares when Joe public will be picking up the tab?

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[chek]

[Andrew.]

[Mr-Bridger]

Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate!

Written by Alan Caruba, Warning Signs

Sunday, November 22 2009 18:45
The tide has turned on the alarmists and they are drowning in a sea of falsehoods and deception.
The tide has turned on the alarmists and they are drowning in a sea of falsehoods and deception.

For those of us “skeptics” and “deniers” who have been jumping up and down, pointing at the Sun, and saying, “See, it’s the Sun that determines how warm or cool the Earth is. See it? Up there in the sky?” The truth about some of the scientists behind the global warming hoax has finally arrived.

The hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases.

Energy is called “the master resource” because, if you have lots of it, you can call your own shots. If you don’t, you are condemned to live in the dark and keeping people in the dark about the global warming hoax was essential.

For years the IPCC has been controlled by a handful of the worst liars in the world, utterly devoted to taking actual climate data and twisting it to confirm the assertion that the Earth was not only warming dramatically, but that humanity was in peril of rising oceans, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, more hurricanes, the die-off of countless animal species, and every other calamity that could possibly be attributed to “global warming”, including acne.

So, around November 20, when some enterprising individual hacked into the computers of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), making off with thousands of emails and documents [download] that demonstrate the level of collusion and deception being practiced by its scientists.

It’s a climate hoax expose that some are calling the revelations a “little blue dress” while others are comparing it to the Pentagon Papers. It has also been dubbed “climategate.”

As James Delingpole wrote in the Telegraph, one of England’s leading newspapers, “Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more” was revealed in the 61 megabites of confidential files released on the Internet for anyone to read.

The conspirators had a visceral hatred for scientists who challenged their phony statistics and climate data, but they also agonized over the difficulties of hiding a long established climate cycle such as the Medieval Warm Period. At one point it was left out of a graph that famously became known as “the hockey stick” because it depicted a ludicrous sudden rise in warming, ignoring the previous natural cycle.

At the heart of the revelations were the intense efforts to ensure that no legitimate scientist, particularly those dissenting from the various IPCC reports, would be allowed to participate in the peer review process. Peer review is an essential element in science as it permits other scientists to examine and test the data being put forth to substantiate a new interpretation or discovery.

The IPCC reports were the basis by which popular media such as National Geographic, Time and Newsweek magazines could spread the lies about a dramatic “global warming”, passing them off to an unsuspecting and scientifically illiterate general public. At the same time, the lies were integrated them into school curriculums and maintained by Hollywood celebrities, politicians and others, duped or deliberately ignorant.

To this day, otherwise legitimate news media outlets continue to trumpet and repeat absolute nonsense about “global warming” like brain-dead parrots.

Now that Hadley CRU and its conspirators have been exposed, there truly is no need to hold a December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen; one in which nations would be required to put limits on “greenhouse gas emissions” even though such gases, primarily carbon dioxide, have nothing to do with altering the Earth’s climate.

And that is why you are going to hear more about “climate change” and far less about “global warming.” Hidden in such discussions, intended to justify legislation and regulation, is that the Earth’s climate has always and will always change.

It is, for example, shameful and deceitful for the EPA to claim carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that should be regulated. The same applies to “cap-and-trade” legislation with the same purpose.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on studies of global warming and poured into agencies such as NASA that have lent credence to the global warming hoax.

“The U.S. taxpayer has much exposure here in the joint projects and collaborations which operated in reliance upon what the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit was doing,” says Christopher C. Horner, a longtime global warming skeptic. “There are U.S. taxpayer-funded offices and individuals involved in the machinations addressed in the emails, and in the emails themselves.”

Horner, the author of “Red Hot Lies”, said that the initial revelations “give the appearance of a conspiracy to defraud, by parties working in taxpayer funded agencies collaborating on ways to misrepresent material on which an awful lot of taxpayer money rides.”

The climate, defined as long term trends, and the weather has nothing whatever to do with human activity and suggesting it does reveals the depth of contempt that people like Al Gore and his ilk have for humanity and those fleeced by purchasing “carbon credits” or paying more for electricity when their utility does.

The East Anglia CRU charlatans have been exposed. Most certainly, the United Nations IPCC should be disbanded in disgrace. It belongs in a museum of hoaxes right beside the Piltdown Man and the Loch Ness Monster.