|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sponsored links
|
| Your-Website-Name | ||
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
||||
|
||||
|
So when are people going to say this is the result of WHITE people doing stupid bullshit with technology?
Since when have there been LOGICAL ENGINEERING reasons for changing the designe of automobiles every year? This is their economic theory of encouraging people to CONSUME and ignoring the Depreciation of all of the junk consumed. Plenty of Black people want to imitate them being consumers but who produces all of the junk and the marketing? This is not a contradiction of capitalism. Capitalism is merely an abstraction. This is a contradiction in the psychology of the culture. We can't produce lots of junk to play status games with each other and call it economic growth while not subtracting the depreciation of the junk and say that this is good AND object to the pollution from the production of the junk at the same time. um
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Sarah Palin: President Obama should boycott Copenhagen
With the publication of damaging emails from a climate research center in Britain, the radical environmental movement appears to face a tipping point. The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate change experts allows the American public to finally understand the concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue. "Climate-gate," as the emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicised scientific circle – the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. The emails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicised science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the US Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development. Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits – not pursuing a political agenda. That's not to say I deny the reality of some changes in climate – far from it. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. I was one of the first governors to create a subcabinet to deal specifically with the issue and to recommend common-sense policies to respond to the coastal erosion, thawing permafrost and retreating sea ice that affect Alaska's communities and infrastructure. But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen – which actually allow them to increase their emissions – President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. Meeting such targets would require Congress to pass its cap-and-tax plans, which will result in job losses and higher energy costs (as Obama admitted during the campaign). That's not exactly what most Americans are hoping for these days. And as public opposition continues to stall Congress's cap-and-tax legislation, Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats plan to regulate carbon emissions themselves, doing an end run around the American people. In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax programme. Meanwhile, Australia's parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate email scandal continues to unfold. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to "restore science to its rightful place." But instead of staying home from Copenhagen and sending a message that the US will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices, the president has upped the ante. He plans to fly in at the climax of the conference in hopes of sealing a "deal." Whatever deal he gets, it will be no deal for the American people. What Obama really hopes to bring home from Copenhagen is more pressure to pass the Democrats' cap-and-tax proposal. This is a political move. The last thing America needs is misguided legislation that will raise taxes and cost jobs – particularly when the push for such legislation rests on agenda-driven science. Without trustworthy science and with so much at stake, Americans should be wary about what comes out of this politicised conference. The president should boycott Copenhagen. Sarah Palin - Sarah Palin on the politicization of the Copenhagen climate conference
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
This e-mail business is so trivial it is not worth paying attention to.
Palin just needs people dumber than she is to pay attention to her. Can the photographs of arctic ice and receding glaciers all be faked? What do you expect the scientists that KNOW this is happening to do? They have kids that they want to survive this century. But they are stuck with having to deal with all of these people that can't comprehend the obvious when it is explained to them. But why weren't those scientists talking about the planned obsolescence of automobiles for the last 50 years. How much pollution was created manufacturing all of that stupidly designed trash. um
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Copenhagen — Dar es Salaam is among 15 cities in the world which are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, a report released at the just ended climate summit here indicated.
The report, published as a book titled 'Climate Change and the Urban Poor' was released by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), an international research organisation based in UK. The 15 cities - three in Asia and the rest in Africa -are all IN least developed countries (LDCs) with low gross national income, weak human assets and high level of economic vulnerability. But they account for only 3.2 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Besides Dar es Salaam, other cities are in Benin, Mozambique, Mali, Mauritania, Malawi, Sudan, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Senegal in Africa. Other cities are Thimphu in Bhutan, Khulna in Bangladesh and Kathmandu in Nepal from Asia. The report says Dar es salaam, located along the Indian Ocean coast, will be affected by climate change predominantly by flooding, a rise in sea level and coastal erosion. In most cases, climate change has already affected large parts of coastal areas with wide spread erosion and flooding and that they continue to devastate vast areas of the coastal areas. The conducted survey has established that a rise in sea level would aggravate existing ecological problems through increased rates of coastal erosion, more persistent flooding, loss of wetlands, increased salination of ground water and soil and greater influx of diverse pollutants. The study shows that coastal erosion has been rampant in many parts of coastal areas in the country but it is more pronounced in north of Dar es Salaam. Kunduchi Beach and Bahari Beach suburbs have been eroded to such extent that heavy investment has been suggested to ensure their preservation. Due to severe impact of climate change, beach strips in Kunduchi area have been gradually washed away by strong waves and has retreated by about 200 metres over the last 50 years and the trend if threatening a the nearby village. According to the report, the biggest threat for coastal cities is a rise in sea level and they often suffer from flooding and coastal erosion. Many coastal cities in LDCs are found in tropical areas, with hot and humid climates and low-lying land, both of which heighten their vulnerability. The report says only two percent of the world's land is in the low elevation coastal zone - the area adjacent to the coast that is less than ten metres above sea level - but this zone is home to 10 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of whom live in urban areas. "Often this group experience flooding, coastal erosion, high temperature and storm, violent wind, drought, landslide, water scarcity and wildfire," says the report. In dry-land cities, where rainfall has always been low, drought was the issue most likely to be accentuated by climate change. Studies have shown the children in Africa, born in a drought year, are significantly most likely to be malnourished. Information provided in this report was gathered and analysed by capacity strengthening in the least developed countries for adaptation to climate change (CLACC) programme. allAfrica.com: Tanzania: Dar is Among Cities Facing Climate Threat (Page 1 of 1)
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
So called scientists lying/manupilating/hiding evidence that CONTRADICTS their theories (that the UN is going to reorder the economies/policies of whole countries, behind,to the tune of billions of dollars),is TRIVIAL?????OK..........
What has been revealed here is that Palin, and others on the Right who have been saying that this is a bunch of b.s. and a fraud/hoax foisted on us by the likes of Al Gore and his ilk, who stand to make a financial killing from this, was RIGHT all along,lol. If the scientific evidence is so overwhelming and self evident, why does it contradict these fools theories, by their OWN admission....to the point that they had to make up sh*t and HIDE the data/evidence????? NEWSFLASH!!!!!! If the data/evidence produced in your scientific experiment condradicts your hypothesis/theory and you continue on to a conclusion that upholds your little theory/hypothesis ANYWAY, just because you feel it in your bones and are sure it must be true, THAT IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!!!!!THAT is RELIGION/FAITH,HELLO!!!!!lol. These *******s and their lapdogs in the media have been accusing anyone who did not buy into man made global warming as a "settled scientific matter" as: dumb, backwards, anti science, etc. MEANWHILE the folks who have been revealed to be ALL THOSE THINGS, particularly the anti science description, is these losers and their minions. Who ONLY respect science when it lays down with their: personal/political/financial/tree hugging agendas. When it doesn't, they will throw science and scientific principles like PEER REVIEW and transparency of data collection and methodology right out the window. There are/were scientists who have said all along that the evidence didnt support claims about man made climate change, but folks like these lying ass scientists and those in government character assasinated them and shut them down, even suggesting that certain peer review journals challenging this, be shut down/run out of business,(this is discussed in the emails,btw). Those who partipated in this hoax and those alibying for them/excusing them/minimizing what they did are no different than the bible thumping, anti science, backwards, religious zealots they like to insult and condescend to. In fact, they are WORSE, because I can respect someone who doesn't think that science can explain everything and accepts certain things on FAITH, and TELLS you that. I don't respect mofos who want to couch their religion of tree hugging/fake environmentalism in SCIENCE, and foist it on the rest of us. These lying ass scientists and those who carry water for them are going to phuck around until science goes the way of journalism in the level of lost credibility and respect. Nobody's going to believe a word they say, before too long.....Keep up the good work......
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Tell us what the FALSE DATA was and what the TRUE DATA REALLY IS. east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-09-09 Climate change: Mail-strom | The Economist The people that have decided what BS they want to BELIEVE are just trying to blow some trivia out of proportion. The shrinking glaciers don't read e-mails regardless of the quality of the data in them. The shrinking glaciers are the data. um
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
November 24, 2009
ClimateGate: The Fix is In By Robert Tracinski [www.realclearpolitics.com] In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming "skeptics" had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century. But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it "Climategate." A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine. Yes, this is a theft of data-but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU. Australian journalist Andrew Bolt has a good overview of the story, with a selection of incriminating e-mails that have already been discovered in the hacked data. Note that these e-mails reveal more than just what it going on at the CRU, since they involve numerous leading British and American climate scientists outside of the CRU. These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, "where the heck is global warming?... 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." They still can't account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: "Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out." I don't know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, it's wrong. More seriously, in one e-mail, a prominent global warming alarmist admits to using a statistical "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures. Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the "trick" consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature "proxies" from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward "hockey stick" slope. Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the e-mails show CRU scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused. But what stood out most for me was extensive evidence of the hijacking of the "peer review" process to enforce global warming dogma. Peer review is the practice of subjecting scientific papers to review by other scientists with relevant expertise before they can be published in professional journals. The idea is to weed out research with obvious flaws or weak arguments, but there is a clear danger that such a process will simply reinforce groupthink. If it is corrupted, peer review can be a mechanism for an entrenched establishment to exclude legitimate challenges by simply refusing to give critics a hearing. And that is precisely what we find. In response to an article challenging global warming that was published in the journal Climate Research, CRU head Phil Jones complains that the journal needs to "rid themselves of this troublesome editor"-hopefully not through the same means used by Henry II's knights. Michael Mann replies: 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. Note the circular logic employed here. Skepticism about global warming is wrong because it is not supported by scientific articles in "legitimate peer-reviewed journals." But if a journal actually publishes such an article, then it is by definition not "legitimate." You can also see from these e-mails the scientists' panic at any dissent appearing in the scientific literature. When another article by a skeptic was published in Geophysical Research Letters, Michael Mann complains, "It's one thing to lose Climate Research. We can't afford to lose GRL." Another CRU scientist, Tom Wigley, suggests that they target another troublesome editor: "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." That's exactly what they did, and a later e-mail boasts that "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/new editorial leadership there." Not content to block out all dissent from scientific journals, the CRU scientists also conspired to secure friendly reviewers who could be counted on to rubber-stamp their own work. Phil Jones suggests such a list to Kevin Trenberth, with the assurance that "All of them know the sorts of things to say...without any prompting." So it's no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN's IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming. This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket. I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through.... We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include. [T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal.... We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don't get to use the RC comments as a megaphone. And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin's toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report. The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping "hockey stick," every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as "unscientific" precisely because it threatens the established dogma. For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is: the fix is in. This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It's the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism. The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy. This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice. Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
AP
Science depends on good quality of data. It also relies on replication and sharing data. But the last couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations. Computer hackers have obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. These e-mails, which have now been confirmed as real, involved many researchers across the globe with ideologically similar advocates around the world. They were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims. The academics here also worked closely with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Professor Jones talks to Professor Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series...to hide the decline [in temperature]." Professor Mann admitted that this was the exchange that he had and explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem, 'and not something secret.'" While the New York Times apparently buys this explanation, it is hard to see the explanation for "to hide the decline." And there is a lot more. In another exchange, Professor Jones tells Professor Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Professor Jones further urges Professor Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s controversial assessment report: "Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re: [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?" In another e-mail, Professor Jones told Professor Mann and Professor Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona and Raymond S. "Ray" Bradley at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!" Professor Jones complains to another academic: "I did get an e-mail from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting e-mails" and "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." We only have e-mails from Professor Jones' institution, and, with his obvious approach to delete files; we have no idea what damaging information has been lost. Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discusses in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that would otherwise be seen in the results. Professor Mann sent Professor Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he is sending shouldn't be shown to others because the results support critics of global warming. Time after time the discussions refer to hiding or destroying data. Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” There were also been discussions to silence academic journals that publish research skeptical of significant man-made global warming. Professor Mann wrote: "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." Other emails refer to efforts to exclude contrary views from publication in scientific journals. Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute, told The Wall Street Journal: "This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn't questionable practice, this is unethical." The New York Times argues: "The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here." -- This from the same news organization that regularly publishes classified government documents! Yet, these e-mails were covered by England's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released when they were requested. Hiding data, destroying information, and doctoring their results raise real questions about many American academics at universities such as Pennsylvania State University, University of Arizona, and University of Massachusetts at Amherst. When at all possible available data must be shared. Usually academic research is completely ignored by the general public but in this case proposed regulations, costing trillions of dollars, are being based on many of these claimed research results. This coordinated campaign to hide scientific information appears unprecedented. John R. Lott, Jr.is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics."
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Other global warming advocates also privately acknowledge what they won’t concede publicly, that temperature changes haven’t been consistent with their models. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, the head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and prominent man-made global warming advocate, wrote in an e-mail: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Maybe you need to adjust your theory/hypothesis, because maybe it's WRONG, DUMBASS!
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
and.....
Climate change data dumpedJonathan Leake, Environment Editor 431 Comments Recommend? (556) SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Related Links The great climate change science scandal EU figurehead says climate change a myth The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data. In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said. Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years. He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity. [www.timesonline.co.uk]
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
And... This happened before the bruhaha
by Christine Hall October 5, 2009 CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding. In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies. In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists. CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues. CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.” Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers. > Read the CEI petition to the EPA. > Read more about the data dump: The Dog Ate Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels.
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
I'll be back to say more about this,but some of you people tire me with your foolishness and refusal to keep it even remotely real,about all manner of topics, including this one.....
For the time being, I'll just say that the earth has had cooling and warming trends since there has been an earth, and long before humans appeared. Glaciers melting is not proof that man did a god damned thing. I was watching a NOVA special about evolution. It talked about how certain places in Africa had gone from being lush savannahs to dry desert because of climate change over the course of many years, and this was prior to humans even existing. I'll also say that if scientists who were SKEPTICS of man made climate change had been busted /caught manufacturing/hiding data and evidence that SUPPORTED the theory that man made climate change was real, the same folks who are trivializing this or barely covered it in the media, would have run the story in the ground and would not be ACTING perplexed as to why it was a big deal.....in fact, we'd never hear the end of the sh*t......
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
How could an e-mail from November of 1999 be trying to hide a decline over the last 10 years? ROFLMAO And if there was a decline over the last 10 years then how could so many glaciers be receding? Apparently the people attacking the scientists can't even agree on what they are attacking them about. Quote:
 um
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Stop sipping the Kool aid. There were over 1000 emails, that span 13 years. The email where the comment was made about not being able to account for the lack of warming was dated OCTOBER 2009!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nice try though...... The email was written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Who 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," Jones and Mann were engaging in some monkey business regarding this stuff in the late nineties too. Jones was massaging the data of those years prior to 99 because that's how these losers reconstruct temps from the prior decades. They can say the temps from the last 150 years have been thus and so, and therefore this or that warming/cooling trend is an aberration, an uptick, or a downtick in temps. THEN, these fools go and CONVENIENTLY destroy the original data so that no one else can examine it, even discussing ways to avoid the Freedom of Information act, and hoping that folks in Britain were too stupid to know that there WAS a Freedom of Information Act,lol....... The fact that this mutherphugger was seeking to hide ANY temperatures from ANY time, is problemtatic for anyone who is SERIOUS about respecting/maintaining scientific integrity. Then these loser has the nerve to try to tell us that the words like "trick" and "hide", no longer mean what we know them to mean. Palin et all aren't the stupid ones. Anybody who believes the bullsh*t explanations of these lying ass mofos, IS,lol...... These losers conspired over YEARS, to defraud us about this bullshIt. Furthermore, If Jones didn't do anything wrong, why did his monkey ass resign after this stuff blew up???????? Why is your needle stuck on "the glaciers melting"??? There any number of reasons that the glaciers could be melting,(If they are in fact melting, we better double check/verify that too, considering who we're dealing with,lol), including NATURAL CLIMATE VARIATIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN.
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Climategate: What e-mail really means
Daniel Compton By now, most people are aware of the scandal surrounding the leak of thousands of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU). Among these is an e-mail exchange involving several of the world's leading climate scientists, dated October of 2009, in which the admission is made that even their best models cannot account for the last decade of temperature data. "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," said Kevin Trenberth, one of the world's preeminent climate scientists and lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. Significantly for public policy, the admission implies that efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions -- including the EPA's endangerment finding, all forms of cap-and-trade-style legislation, and any possible resolution to emerge from the recently convened Copenhagen conference --have no basis in science . Trenberth's statement is compelling on its own, but the subsequent discussion is even more illuminating. Later in the same e-mail thread, fellow climate scientist Tom Wigley replies that he does not agree with Trenberth's assertion. Trenberth then responds to Wigley, clarifying and expounding upon his earlier claims: Advertisement "How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!" This comment requires some scientific translation for its significance to be fully understood. The "energy budget" is the total energy gains and losses incurred by the Earth. The overwhelming majority of the energy entering the Earth comes from the Sun. Some of that energy is reflected back out into space by the atmosphere, clouds, and the Earth's surface, while the remaining energy is absorbed, and is later reradiated as heat. The amount of energy the Earth gains is approximately equal to the amount it loses, which is why global temperatures remain relatively stable from day to day. We have fairly good estimates of how much energy is entering the Earth, and we know from the laws of thermodynamics that energy cannot cease to exist, so "balancing the energy budget" simply entails accounting for where all that energy is going. "Global warming" refers to the condition in which the Earth as a system is taking on slightly more energy than it is losing for a sustained period, causing it to heat up over time. Therefore, it is highly significant when one of the world's leading climate scientists asserts that we are "no where close to knowing where energy is going" and "not close to balancing the energy budget". In this context, "geoengineering" refers to any deliberate effort to affect net energy gains or losses to achieve a desired result, such as a cooler planet. The energy income of the planet is approximately static, and also well beyond our control, so affecting net energy flow necessarily involves changing systemic energy losses. Greater atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2), can reduce energy loss, so reducing CO2 emissions is one method of geoengineering. Indeed, Trenberth, in a letter published in the February 2009 issue of Physics Today defined "geoengineering" to include all efforts to "reduce emissions ... or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Therefore, using his own definition of "geoengineering," Trenberth's remark could be interpreted thus: The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration to reduce emissions ... or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! All policy actions that would be required under the EPA endangerment finding, cap-and-trade legislation, and any global climate treaty amount to attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, by his own admission, Kevin Trenberth appears convinced that all these efforts are quite hopeless indeed. Daniel Compton is a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and contributor to
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Real scientists would care about Climategate fraud
By streams Fri, Dec 11 2009 The Climategate e-mails are the proverbial smoking gun, but it’s curious so few scientists cared about the bleeding scientific body lying at their feet. The word fraud and climate science are being used a lot in the same sentence lately — and, frankly, it’s about time. After all, what’s astonishing about what has now been dubbed Climategate is myriad, but the most important aspect is that evidence of scientific fraud with regard to global warming science has existed for a very long time, and yet prior to these bombshell e-mails it was just shrugged off by scientists who have become advocates for the theory of man-made global warming. This should always have been troubling. As French philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss wrote: "The scientific mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions." When it comes to climate science however, those who ask the questions are treated as heretics and called deniers. True scientists should be outraged to learn that a colleague had his work misrepresented or even changed to help prove a given hypothesis, or that the peer-reviewed process was being messed with. That has not been the case for many years now. Scientists gathered at Copenhagen are trying to justify Climategate and are actually focusing on the "illegality" of the hacking (like that ever concerned people about Watergate or with the Pentagon papers or any other leak). Climategate, for those who have been too busy digging out of snow drifts, broke in November and refers to the more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents that went viral on the Internet originating from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in England. No one is denying that the e-mails are real. In essence, the e-mails suggest that the books were cooked to "hide the decline" and make the world look warmer than it is. Most of the e-mails revolve around Phil Jones, head of the CRU, who resigned recently because of this scandal, and Michael Mann, a U.S. professor of meteorology (who is already a discredited scientist, as his hockey stick graph was proved to be false years ago, though he remains a darling of the anthropogenic global warming religion crowd.) The e-mail that best sums up the unscientific mindset was written by Jones on July 5, 2005. "If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish." Well, he’s got that right. This is an astonishing admission. This man who has led much of the climate alarmism and fed the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with the feedstock numbers that were later destroyed by him, but were the basis for much of the reports for policy-makers, would like to see thousands of people perish, species go extinct and island nations get submerged because he so badly wants to be proven right! The mind boggles. But messing with scientific facts to prop up the claim that humans are causing warming is nothing new. What happened to Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in France is just one example of what has been going on for years. He is considered one of the leading experts on malaria and is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee. In the BBC Channel 4 documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Reiter points out that mosquitoes are not only found in the tropics. Such information is not a surprise to most Canadians or those who live in the Arctic, since most of us do battle with the bloodsuckers every summer. In the film, Reiter points out that "the most devastating epidemic of malaria was in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. There were something like 13 million cases a year, and something like 600,000 deaths. A tremendous catastrophe ... So it’s not a tropical disease. Yet these people in the global warming fraternity invent the idea that malaria will move northwards," because of warming. Reiter shared his knowledge about malaria with the UN’s IPCC, but when he saw a draft of the report, Reiter resigned and "thought that was the end of it. "But when I saw the final draft, my name was still there. So I asked for it to be removed. Well, they told me that I had contributed, so it would remain there. So I said, no, I haven’t contributed, because they haven’t listened to anything I’ve said. So, in the end it was quite a battle. But finally I threatened legal action against them and they removed my name. And I think this happens a great deal. Those people who are specialists, but don’t agree with the polemic, and resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list and become part of this 2,500 of the world’s top scientists," also known as the scientific consensus. The real question about what Reiter reveals is why other scientists — regardless of what side of this debate they fall on — are not outraged by his revelation, and the revelation of many other scientists like him, who have had their work misrepresented. Why don’t these warming believers care about the debasement of science? Why don’t they care about scientific fraud? And if their science is so undeniable and certain, why have they refused to release their temperature data and now destroyed it? Those questions need to be asked. Real science demands nothing less. But, don’t hold your breath.
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
And of course glaciers melt and recede when it is getting COLDER  And of course there is the problem of not haveing a SPARE PLANET. If we get this wrong by being TOO CAUTIOUS what is gong to happen? If we get it wrong by being TOO WRECKLESS what is going to happen? THERE IS NO SPARE PLANET!!! um
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is hard to get some Afrikan engineers I may work with to look at development outside of the consumptionist model inherent in the practices of Western culture. I don't think engineers necessarily "plan" the obsolescence, but rather "planned obsolescence" is integral to the Western economic model. These become business demands impressed upon the engineers who make the products. I personally don't think there is a solution to this problem within such a flawed system. I think we, as Afrikans, need to establish nationhood independent of the countries in the Diaspora in which many of us live. In this proposed new nation, we must discard most of the industrialization models of established European culture. ~Confucius
|
||||
|
| |
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
When it comes to these conferences and meetings of the minds of scientists on global warming, you have to remember that the scientific method is neither unbiased or objective. The objectivity and lack of bias is only obtained by the premises used to formulate the initial hypothesis being tested. If the premises are biased or subjective, then almost surely the "scientific" inquiry shall follow in that fashion.
For instance, one of the main hypotheses in the climate change debate is the notion of greenhouse gases emitted by industrialized nations. The most abundant greenhouse gases, which effect the Earth's temperature, are the following in order starting from the highest to lowest in abundance in the atmosphere:
Now, I am on the fence as to whether all this global warming and climate change talk is even worth the paper it is written on. However, from a pure scientific perspective, it is unclear to me whether eliminating even all industrial carbon dioxide emissions in the world would even make a difference. Even a precursory glance at the archaeological record shows great cyclic climate swings from severe warming to ice ages all before there was any industrialized carbon-emissions as we know them today. So it is quite possible that all of this is a futile exercise in intellectual masturbation. Not like we haven't seen this before by Europeans. We need be careful not to imitate even their buffoonery. ~Confucius
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
