Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
Chek I have a few questions for you
It seem's obvious to me the public are turning against the AGW story quite quickly, and that the integrity of the AGW message is being heavily eroded.. and I make that observation quite separate from the content of this thread, but based on the information and opinions on the Zeitgeist. With the public mood about public debt very grim, Climategate does have the potential to become a full blown scandel of the type seldom seen
You may remember my talk on AGW last year, in which I contrasted the views of Lawson and Lovelock and attempted to steer a path to gain some clarity on the overall picture
In that talk, and perhaps not explicitly enough to be honest, I voiced my concern, that I've held for sometime now, that AGW represented a corporate take-over of the green movement. My basic observation is that as business says "we cannot afford the costs of new equipment to become more green" it was in the corporate interest of at least some powerful corporations to back AGW, especially power generation, because a tax on their end product would be universal across the globe, and thus they would not be uncompetitive as a result. Through green taxation going to the state and going back out to corporations, they could make their customers pay for them to become more environmental with no drop in profits. It also would do nothing about addressing the production phase and the profligate exploitation of non renewable resources in manufacturing (mostly badly designed nonsense we dont need). Of course not all corporate interests would see this as beneficial, especially Oil producers, as it would make their profits lower if environmentally improved business need less Oil as they become more efficient
Do you feel this scenario may indicate why corporate media power is being applied to both sides of the debate, with dubious paid experts on either side?
Is it possible that corporate pressure has led to junk science being produced to please a corporate/political globalist time-table (Copenhagen) which will now pollute the real AGW science in the public eye? Could some criticisms of the AGW science actually be well founded, but appear conclusive for the wrong reasons?
If that is the case, is the green movement going to need to switch directions from trying to prove CO2 a "cause" (IE following the same strategy as with CFC's 20 years ago), to recognising CO2 as a symptom of industrial exploitation?
A symptom of the uncontrolled abuse of the planet represented by the actual materials economy?
And isnt that far more dangerous for all corporations? Exploit less stuff = make less money = lose power, especially to governments
In my talk last year Lawson described AGW as a dangerous cult that could wreck western economies
Surely the real cult is consumerism excusing industry raping the planet?
I'll bump this back up:) _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
On the face of it, it was perfectly understandable that Ward's claims should be ignored since he was merely an amateur,
with no scientific training and no track record in research.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071112110328/www.alternativescience.com/f lame-proof.htm _________________ "Soon after the year 2000 has been written, a law will go forth from America whose purpose will be to suppress all individual thinking. This will not be the wording of the law, but it will be the intent" Rudolf Steiner: Gegenwärtiges und Vergangenes in Menschengeiste (The Present and the Past in the Human Spirit)
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:20 pm Post subject:
TonyGosling wrote:
Yup, the debate has broken through in to the mainstream big time.
And it tuirns out almost everyone who wants a carbon tax is being bribed by someone somewhere down the line to say so.
You'll have to explain that one, preferably with some evidence, if possibe. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
Another heated debate.
Reaching a temperature that is definitely anthropogenic...
LOL, indeed.
What amazes me is that supposed critical thinkers show little evidence of being so in some situations.
Let's take this example, which is as far as I could stick the RT interview.
The email extract in question which actually says:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years
(ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
is magically transformed into:
"He used a trick to hide the fact that the world's temperature is not increasing".
Excuse me?????
How in the world did the former become the latter?
Media manipulation much?
What did he think "each series" meant?
The news presenter didn't understand that part, so he just left it out.
Brilliant!
Which is why he'll be back to working in retail when his hair and teeth fall out. But I digress....
As we all know full well, words only have one meaning which is always the one inviting the most suspicion.
Oh, hang on - no they don't!
How dumb of me!
But what other explanation could there be for use of the word "trick" between two scientists privately discussing data sets.
Surely it's obvious they're plotting to lie and get more grants and buy more Lamborghinis and coke and hookers while bringing in
a communist world government. That's what we've been drip fed for years by our favouritest blog science sites, so what else can it mean?
Sadly most of the herd go along with this pre-digested and spoonfed
take on events even though they may not have heard the word
climate since their last visit to the travel agent.
And it goes without saying that it would be prudent for scientists, in
their private emails to each other to bear in mind that at any time,
their email might be hacked, and it would therefore be wiser to not
use slang words in case some moron who can't even add up misunderstands it at some point in the future. Obviously.
But what else in tarnation could "trick" mean?
Plenty.
"More and more in my teaching career, I see that we often are able to enhance student learning in mathematics with tricks.
There are many tricks to teach children divisibility in
mathematics. Some tricks that I used to use in my
classroom are listed here".
http://math.about.com/library/bldivide.htm
"Since two polynomials are equal if and only if their corresponding coefficients are equal, we can equate the coefficients of like terms.
In this way, a system of linear equations is obtained which always has
a unique solution. This solution can be found using any of the
standard methods of linear algebra.
However, this is often not the best way to go when computing by
pencil and paper, and there are other ways ("tricks") to obtain
the constants."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_fraction#General_result
Example (IIIa) trigonometric integrals, the general procedure
The above method may be applied to all integrals of the type
where P and Q are polynomials, i.e. a rational function in trigonometric terms is being integrated.
Well, I never.
The mathemeticians must be plotting a communist world gubmint to take away our freedoms and SUV's and light bulbs too.
From my cold, dead hands, I tells ya....
And so we come to “hiding the decline” - they're obviously talking about hiding the decline in global temperatures - all that global cooling we've been hearing about from the blog scientists, right?
Well no they aren't and context is everthing.
A fact without context can be as misleading as a lie, after all.
What they're talking about a subset of data in dendrochronolgy (tree-ring dating) which was the subject of a Nature article in 1998.
"As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).
Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens".Gavin Schmidt
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#mo re-1853
Disappointing that our resident band expect and look no further than the headlines. Although somehow, I did expect better.
Silly me, LOL. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject:
John White wrote:
I'll bump this back up:)
As I mentioned a few post back, I haven't forgotten John.
Put too much into it so far to forget it _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:57 pm Post subject:
As I've said before Chek, I dont know what to believe when it comes to AGW and my LOL was just a bad joke inspired by the fact that these televised arguments are now on becoming more heated.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:05 pm Post subject:
Mr-Bridger wrote:
Professors Singer and Watson climate change debate on BBC Daily Politics
Wow, the deniers must be really scared this leaked email teacup storm is going nowhere if they've had to wheel on éminence grise and daddy denier of them all Fred Singer.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
As I've said before Chek, I dont know what to believe when it comes to AGW and my LOL was just a bad joke inspired by the fact that these televised arguments are now on becoming more heated.
I wish I could decide what to believe. In time, in time.
Nevertheless, you don't have to have made up your mind to recognise gross distortion, even if you've had to wait to have it pointed out to you.
And where these distortions are originating from is another subject entirely. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:33 am Post subject:
GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
The distortions you refer to would have to be pointed out to me. I'm not even sure I know what they are.
I'm far from being even close to understanding any of the data involved. It's not my bag.
All jokes aside. Any post I have made on this thread is an attempt to understand.
Erm, describing one such exact instance in the video you posted was pointed out, in detail.
But, like, wha'ever.
I suppose the subliminal distortions of temperature graphs in Mr.B's sub-South Park music video also went unnoticed and ... oh, never mind.
I think the original point was just confirmed. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
If you watch the above video, from 7:50 onwards, during the debate malaria is brought up by the anti-AGW representative as something that the money used for the upcoming summit in Copenhagen should be used to target, instead of being wasted on the summit.
The studio reporter then suggests that it's possible that malaria could be as a result of the increase in global temperature.
The anti-AGW rep then says that's nonsense and malaria has even happened in Russia in the past. A relatively cold place.
Then, when it goes back to the pro-AGW rep he say that malaria never happened in Russia before...
According to this WHO article he couldn't be more wrong...
Russian Federation
Overview of the malaria situation
The Russian Federation has faced numerous malaria epidemics throughout history...
Then the article continues with a pro climate-change type statement...
Quote:
The period following the First World War was an extraordinarily difficult time, as famine, mass population movement, and social upheaval, combined with hot and humid climatic conditions, caused what has been referred to as the greatest malaria epidemic of modern times in Europe.
But then later on the WHO article states that during the last decade malaria cases in Russia dropped!
Dropped at the time the temperature is supposed to be rising...???
Quote:
Between 2001 and 2006 the number of imported and autochthonous cases continued to drop - from 898 to 143. All these cases were reported in 38 administrative territories of the country. There were only 11 cases of P. vivax malaria due to local transmission in 2006
So confusing.
But the pro-AGW guy is seemingly very wrong.
I know that doesn't mean that AGW is consequently non-existent but it was just interesting to find his conviction that malaria had never happened in his own country to be very misplaced.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 575 Location: the eyevolution
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:58 am Post subject:
chek wrote:
Erm, describing one such exact instance in the video you posted was pointed out, in detail.
But that's just it. I didn't recognise the distortion in the video because today is the first time I have looked into this email case and unlike you I wouldn't recognise the distortion. Because I lack your expertise on the matter.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:48 am Post subject:
Fair enough GSTT, although I'd argue 'tetchy' was more accurate.
Anyroadup, it appears the warming alarmists have been misleading us all, as it turns out.
When they publish their boring charts and graphs with a maximum and minimum impact assessment, we'd be fully entitled to think that the eventual reality would be somewhere in the middle.
But the latest un-emailed data in are saying that they're not being alarmist enough regarding sea level rise!
Can't these scientists get anything right?
No wonder we shouldn't trust them, just like they've been saying all week.
That'd be let's see, 6 cms in 20 years is about a foot a century rise?
Maybe some latter day Marie Antoinette will even say "Let them buy yachts". _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:30 am; edited 2 times in total
Worth a look just to read the comments at the end of the article. The scam is almost over.
Quote:
November 24th, 2009 8:49 pm
Climategate and the “T”-word
We all know the “t”-word. Our President has used it many times, as did former UN Secretary General Annan. It’s – all together now – transparency. Now the “t”-word is promised us in almost every campaign by politicians (and mega-bureaucrats like Kofi) and never delivered, so we’re used to looking at it with a jaundiced eye from them. But scientists, scientists, they are the big brains, the honest ones, the ones who, unlike cheap pols, work for eternity, like Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein.
Anyway, they were, until Climategate came along. Here from the Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog is a breathtakingly short and simple illustration of the values of Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, from whence all these emails and documents concerning global warming have been lifted.
Phil Jones, Dec 3, 2008:
"About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all."
Phil Jones, Nov 24, 2009 Guardian
"We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU."
Oops. Forget the “T”-word. How about the “P”-word (prevarication)? Or the “BFL” word (big fat liar)?
Now look – I want to be clear. I don’t necessarily disagree that anthropogenic global warming is a danger. I’m beginning to doubt it, but I certainly don’t know. What’s clear, however, is these scientists at CRU don’t know (or aren’t so sure) either. Otherwise they wouldn’t have been so guarded, so deceptive, with their data (what remains of it) for so long. They would have been transparent and shared the data with the skeptics if they were so sure they were right. It’s the scientific thing to do, as we all learned in grammar school, if you’re serious about the truth.
But thus far our President and his crew, not to mention our friends at European Union and the UN, are going along as if this download never happened. It’s full steam ahead to Copenhagen:
The United States, under pressure from other nations as one of the world’s largest greenhouse-gas polluters, will present a target for reducing carbon dioxide emissions at next month’s climate conference in Copenhagen, Obama administration officials said Monday.
The development came as the European Union urged the United States and China to deliver greenhouse gas emissions targets at the long-anticipated summit, saying their delays were hindering global efforts to curb climate change.
What’s confusing here is that we all agree – or most of us- that pollution is bad. What we don’t agree on, now more than ever, is the role of AWG, which is increasingly mysterious the more you read these documents. As Charlie Martin shows us, it’s not just the emails, it’s the data itself that is corrupt. We don’t know what we know. But the world is poised to spend untold billions or trillions on that basis.
I happen to favor energy independence, was once a Sierra Club member (okay, I got sick of them) and currently drive a Prius – and still I think this stinks.
(btw, check out the Guardian interview with Jones: “Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.” Hint to Jones: Never use the word “categorically.” It’s a dead giveaway.)
Climate change scandal deepens as BBC expert claims he was sent 'cover-up' emails a month before they went public
By Carol Driver
Last updated at 10:10 PM on 25th November 2009
The controversy surrounding the global warming scandal today deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked emails more than a month before they were made public.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world's leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog two days ago, Hudson said: 'I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world's leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article "Whatever Happened To Global Warming".'
That essay, written last month, argued that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures.
It also presented the arguments of sceptics who believe natural cycles control temperature and the counter-arguments of those who think it's man's actions which are warming the planet.
The leaked files - which show 4,000 documents which have allegedly been sent by scientists over the past 13 years - were apparently taken from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which is a world-renowned centre focused on studying climate change.
They were then uploaded on to a Russian server before being published on a blog called Air Vent.
The emails apparently show researchers discussing how to 'spin' climate data and how that information should be presented to the media.
In his blog for BBC Look North, Hudson added: 'The emails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.'
He also publishes a link to the messages which global warming sceptics claim provide 'smoking gun' evidence that some scientist talked about manipulated data to support the theory that climate change is being caused by mankind.
'He should quit': George Monbiot (left) says Professor Phil Jones should resign
However, Hudson does not explain why he sat on the controversial information for so long, but added: 'I do intend to write a blog regarding the CRU being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.'
Former Chancellor Lord Lawson has called for an inquiry into the scandal, warning the credibility of UK science is at stake.
It comes amid pressure on the professor at the centre of the scandal to quit from his position at the CRU.
In one damning email, he appears to call the death of a climate change sceptic 'cheering news!'.
In other messages, researchers appear to be manipulating data and discussing how to dodge Freedom Of Information requests.
Another shows a climatologist from the U.S. admitting it was a travesty that the lack of global warming in recent years could not be explained.
George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said he was convinced the emails were genuine, adding: 'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken.
'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'
However, Professor Jones today told the Telegraph he stands by his findings.
He called any conspiracy to manipulate climate data to support the theory of man-made global warming 'complete rubbish'.
'The facts speak for themselves, there is no need for anyone to manipulate them,' he added.
When posted on the internet, the emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
'We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents.
'Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.'
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia 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.
'Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine.
'We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.'
Yet more from the Holocaust denying local weathermen with the wrong politics.
Quote:
Another Prominent Scientist Calls CRU Scientists "Criminals" Leaked documents prove alarmists planned to seek funding from "energy agencies"
Steve Watson, Infowars.net, Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009
A prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed "ClimateGate".
Australian geologist and long time opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Ian Plimer, has condemned what he describes as "alarmism underpinned by fraud".
"This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers." Plimer writes in a commentary piece.
"The same crooks control the IPCC and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world." Plimer continues.
He points out that the emails intimate that figures were manipulated to cover up the medieval warming period, and continued global cooling, in addition to artificially inflated data to emphasize warming during the 20th century.
Plimer, author of the best selling book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science, has long been a vocal critic of what he describes as the hijacked environmental movement.
Plimer has stated many times that he feels vast swathes of the scientific community have been co-opted to manipulate data in return for millions in continued research funding.
The leaked emails from the Hadley centre reveal that CRU chief P.D. Jones has received 55 endowments since 1990 from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million.
Another document titled (potential-funding.doc) lists sources of potential funding and shows that the scientists considered pressing "energy agencies" that specifically deal in new technology to reduce carbon emissions.
Three agencies listed as potential sources of funding are UK based Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust. Renewables North West, an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy, is listed as a fourth potential benefactor.
Of course, all these potential financial backers have a vested interest in maintaining the conception that human-induced global warming is a reality backed by science.
Anthropogenic global warming theorists have long attacked skeptical scientists, claiming they are bought and paid for by oil companies, yet here we have the most influential group of climate scientists acknowledging that they are a shoe-in to receive funding from energy companies with vested interests.
Ian Plimer joins another prominent figure in the debate, Lord Christopher Monckton, who called for a full investigation and criminal prosecutions earlier this week.
More from people with the wrong politics. The comments at the end are typical of the current trend and worth reading for the uplifting feeling that the fraud is nearing its end. eg
"Can you believe the headline on the BBC News online page?
…( “Global warming dangers alarming”.)
Actually it’s just been moved to their science and environment page, but they chose to banner this rather than the lying and cheating revealed yesterday.
No mention yesterday about the bullying and lying revealed by the UEA emails ( which Watson dared to defend yesterday on BBC2 Newsnight, although he had modified his earlier simplistic sole defence/attack of the law being brought to bear on the hackers.)
The BBC and Met Office are up to their necks in this propaganda.
As many have been saying for years: Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth.
To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.
“Deniers” as some of the “Greens” seek to imply of those who can still think for themselves, should more aptly be put in the category of those who refuse to acknowledge that climate does indeed change, has always changed, and will continue to change … WITHOUT Man’s help.
Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new “religion” that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 …
“I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.
“But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts.
“The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.
“Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models…”"
Quote:
Why I am a global warming sceptic: part 92
By Janet Daley Politics Last updated: November 24th, 2009
According to the UN climate agency, the level of greenhouse gases has hit record levels. And carbon dioxide levels are rising faster than in previous years. Furthermore, these levels have apparently risen every year since detailed records began in 1998. So why, why, why is it that there has been no global warming since that very year: why indeed is 1998 the year in which, it has been noted, the temperature of the earth began slightly but perceptibly to fall?
I am not a scientist. I have no meteorological expertise whatever. But I spent twenty years teaching philosophy and I know a logical contradiction when I see one. If greenhouse gases, and most particularly carbon dioxide, are the chief cause of global warming, then surely there should be a direct correlation between their rise (especially if it is one of record-breaking proportions) and a rise in the rate of warming. Can somebody please explain to me how an increase in these gases can exactly coincide with a fall in temperature? And while they are doing it, can they please refrain from cooking the figures (pun intended)?
Celebrity environmentalist Ed Begley makes an absolute clown out of himself on Fox News, claiming “peer-reviewed” studies prove man-made global warming when hacked emails clearly illustrate how peer-reviewed process is completely bias and corrupt.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
If the juvenile and wildly erratic behavior of celebrity environmentalist Ed Begley, Jr. is anything to go by, the warmists are more upset about ClimateGate than they are letting on.
Begley appeared on Fox News yesterday to react to the explosive story of the hacked CRU emails which prove that climate scientists affiliated with the UN IPCC altered temperature data models in order to “hide the decline” in global warming since the 1960’s, as well as engaging in academic witch hunts to ensure the work of skeptical scientists was blocked from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.
When asked about the scandal, Begley immediately resorted to invoking the words, “peer reviewed studies,” uttering the phrase no less than eight times in an attempt to dismiss the hundreds of skeptical scientists whose stance on global warming proves that the debate is not over. Unfortunately for this clown, his constant repetition of the term only discredited his argument with each mention.
The hacked emails show that warmists conspired to conduct academic witch hunts in order to prevent studies which didn’t jive with their agenda from appearing in peer-reviewed journals.
As the Telegraph’s James Delingpole highlights, the exposé reveals, “A long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.”
Other emails illustrate how warmists embarked on a campaign to discredit peer-reviewed journals that dared publish studies which contradicted the man-made global warming hypothesis. The emails illustrate that the peer-review process is completely corrupted.
Warmists can invoke “peer-reviewed studies” until they are blue in the face, as Begley does in this interview, but the fact is that the entire foundation of the argument has been debunked now it is proven that an inherent bias to censor unfavorable studies from appearing in such journals has been in place.
The rest of the interview mainly consists of Begley having a tantrum, wildly gesticulating and waving his finger around like a drunken sailor. Implicit within his behavior is everything that has come to represent the climate cultists – a religious-style zeal in proclaiming absolute truth, an obstinate refusal to even entertain dissenting opinions, and an aggressive shouty posture indicative of someone in deep denial attempting to drown out anything that might contradict their flimsy argument.
Hilariously, Begley flip-flops within the space of twenty seconds, first claiming that the government should come into private homes to conduct energy audits, then almost immediately contradicting himself.
“You should have an energy audit in your home to make it more efficient,” states Begley, before the host makes his point about the government coming into people’s homes and telling them they can’t have incandescent light bulbs.
“What kind of American believes that the government should come right into a private house and say you can’t have this kind of light bulb,” asks the host, to which Begley responds, “Nobody’s going to come into your house.”
Which is it Ed? You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Begley then begins mumbling about children’s toys and toasters before he flip-flops again by insinuating that cleaner air in LA is related to steps taken to combat global warming. The host puts him on the spot, stating, “That has nothing to do with global warming.” Begley then admits, “I know it has nothing to do with global warming,” raising the question of why he brought it up in a debate about global warming, as well as why he ludicrously then invokes seat belts and air bags.
Watch the video below. The Begley clip follows an interview with Senator Inhofe.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:46 am Post subject:
item8 wrote:
Quote:
I am not a scientist. I have no meteorological expertise whatever. But I spent twenty years teaching philosophy and I know a logical contradiction when I see one. If greenhouse gases, and most particularly carbon dioxide, are the chief cause of global warming, then surely there should be a direct correlation between their rise (especially if it is one of record-breaking proportions) and a rise in the rate of warming. Can somebody please explain to me how an increase in these gases can exactly coincide with a fall in temperature? And while they are doing it, can they please refrain from cooking the figures (pun intended)?
Yes, quite easily with no logical contradiction necessary.
The forcing by CO2 isn't the only factor to be taken into account in climate systems.
Oh, and average global temperature isn't falling.
Perhaps you'd explain where you got that idea from.
Thanks. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Russian Federation
Overview of the malaria situation
The Russian Federation has faced numerous malaria epidemics throughout history...
Then the article continues with a pro climate-change type statement...
Quote:
The period following the First World War was an extraordinarily difficult time, as famine, mass population movement, and social upheaval, combined with hot and humid climatic conditions, caused what has been referred to as the greatest malaria epidemic of modern times in Europe.
But then later on the WHO article states that during the last decade malaria cases in Russia dropped!
Dropped at the time the temperature is supposed to be rising...???
Quote:
Between 2001 and 2006 the number of imported and autochthonous cases continued to drop - from 898 to 143. All these cases were reported in 38 administrative territories of the country. There were only 11 cases of P. vivax malaria due to local transmission in 2006
So confusing.
But the pro-AGW guy is seemingly very wrong.
I know that doesn't mean that AGW is consequently non-existent but it was just interesting to find his conviction that malaria had never happened in his own country to be very misplaced.
Either that or he's lying.
Without current access the the video, I suspect the point trying to be put across is that since the 1960's primary infections have been almost eradicated (not secondary imported cases) with improved water hygene and insecticides, but now with increasing temperatures mosquito borne cases are increasing as the bugs are able to migrate north to areas they couldn't inhabit previously.
For the same reasons the tree killing pine beetle in the US is moving north into Canada, and the Siberian swans no longer need to migrate for the winter.
Checking the temperature maps at NASA or in the Copenhagen .pdf I linked a few posts ago will show that temperature increases amplify in the more northerly latitudes. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Yet more from the Holocaust denying local weathermen with the wrong politics.
Evere notice how they're always the "wrong politics"?
If indeed you can dignify right wing corporate neo-feudalism with such a bland phrase.
item8 wrote:
Quote:
Another Prominent Scientist Calls CRU Scientists "Criminals" Leaked documents prove alarmists planned to seek funding from "energy agencies"
Steve Watson, Infowars.net, Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009
A prominent scientist has called for criminal prosecutions to be brought against the UN affiliated scientists involved in what has been termed "ClimateGate".
Australian geologist and long time opponent of anthropogenic global warming theory, Ian Plimer, has condemned what he describes as "alarmism underpinned by fraud".
They're getting all their big stars out for this one, eh?
Pity they've got nothing.
And even more of a pity they could never do anything with all that data in the public domain. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
