Logged in as: Anonymous Search | Active Topics |

CLIMATEGATE: It's All Unravelling Now Options
#1 Posted : Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:28:49 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

cmate,again it's not that people get caught in their lies,everyone lies to get their way,as usual they go about the wrong way to do the right thing,the right thing being that we need to stop using oil and coal to fuel whats left of what we once had and what other countries have now.I don't pay as much attention to the global warming thing as I once did,I am far more concerned now that we may be running out of 'easy' oil faster than I once thought.You may think I am foolish but there have been serious rumours amongst people in the business that petroleum is again on the way up in price and soon(within the next year or two)and sadly not because of demand but because of supply issues.I have heard of several large fields abroad that have gone dry and that they have started doing a seawater/steam process in order to extricate the last of the fields.They are in the Mideast and in Nigeria,where I cannot say( I think Saudi Arabia) and also supplies in this country are in trouble too.Dubai is in a panic about this,the current news abroad is full  of these issues.Problem with this is this: If easy oil dries up the cost of exploring and drilling will quadruple the price of oil in less than 2 years.This means possible economic collapse worldwide in 2 - 3 years.I recently came about this knowledge from people I know at work who have dealings with petroleum companies.They are buying expensive extrication equipment and have been for the last couple of years.No exploration has been taking place especially in North America because most of the easy fields are explored and gone.They had North Dakota and southern Canada on their maps as strategic fields to use as a last resort.This is why I'm here,to tell all that the times' coming soon and NOT because of 'global warming' but because of our own demands on the one resouce that has a huge effect on our daily lives may be about to end soon and that we as a civilization better get off our lazy butts and use different ideas and do it now,not later.

John Edward Mercier
#2 Posted : Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:27:30 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Total federal revenues minus SS, Medicare, and Interest equals new taxation. Since the easiest way to new taxation is to raise current forms... and energy taxes are one of the current forms. It makes sense that they would look in that area. Of course, Cap & Trade is pretty intricate... but I can see where straight taxation would be more of a burden to the poor.


#3 Posted : Thursday, December 03, 2009 5:59:58 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

C-mate, you seem to be missing the point............on purpose, perhaps?  The climate is changing - you must know that - and yet you seem hell-bent on focusing on whether it is civilization doing it or not.  Does it matter?  If your house is burning, does it matter how it started?  It is the RESULT that counts, not the initiating factors.  And the results of global warming (whether caused by humans, sunspots, natural cycles or a conspiracy of rich people trying to control world populations) are that our global systems will change.  Radically. 

Why don't I take this burden off your shoulders and admit (since I know everything) that the climate is changing for natural reasons.  Happy now?  So, now that we know that you and your friends (GM, Standard Oil, GWB, Cheney) are all innocent sweethearts and that oil is still our 'friend', what are you going to do about the fact that the southern US will look like the moon in a decade or two.  Maybe sooner.  Seen the San Joachim Valley in California recently? 

Smugly finding fault with one or two climatologists reports is like worrying about the ref seeing an off-side when you team is losing 99 to 0 with only a few seconds left on the clock.  For your sake, Cm, focus on the issue - not the tangents.



#4 Posted : Saturday, December 05, 2009 9:15:50 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
cmate wrote:

At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing

Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton and James Delingpole all in one post.  That's the triple crown of stupidity.  That's a reach even for you cmate

#5 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:01:40 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
The recent revelations of fraud and collusion on the part of the climate research community warrants another serious look at what is ACTUALLY happening with climate change.  This rush to bring in global governance by way of the proposed cap and trade taxes, UN law trumping national law and sovereignty, and the economic manipulation of moving industrialization from  the "western countries" to third world and developing countries chosen by the global elite. Since the research, and the conclusions arrived at from it, have come under serious questioning after the exposure of the fraud and manipulated data by the (controlled and biased) scientific community a moratorium should be declared on moving forward with the plans of the global elitists who stand to benefit from these innacurate conclusions. I say let's investigate this issue further and try to determine what is accurate in  terms of what change IS occuring before we rush into international treaties and agreements that wind up being of tremendous negative economic and political consequences to all of us. PUT THESE INTERNATIONAL "CAP AND TRADE TAXATION" AND "NATIONAL-SOVEREIGNTY-ENDING" SCHEME TREATIES ON HOLD TILL THE TRUTH IS FOUND OUT!!     http://www.climatedepot.com/   A project of CFACTFlashback: UK's Monbiot: 'We're losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease'Flashback Oct 2009: Losing Their Religion: 2009 officially declared year the media lost their faith in man-made global warming fears'Cooking climate data can be an expensive habit': ClimateGate Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding HypocrisyRead All About it! Climate Depot Exclusive - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round UpCompilation of key ClimateGate emailsUpdate: CRU Emails - Searchable Database Set UpUN IPCC 'should be forced to start over from scratch ... with total and complete transparency''Global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists'Old Consensus: There Is 'Unprecedented' Global Warming; New Consensus: UN-IPCC Climate Scientists Are Unprecedented LiarsWARMING ESTABLISHMENT ROCKED AS MEDIA RETREATS: 'I'm dismayed and deeply shaken...I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed...Jones should now resign'///// ----- Original Message ----- ">Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 11:24 AMSubject: Climate Fraudsters ExposedAlex Jones TV: Doom & Gloom Climate Fraudsters Exposed Infowars | Alex covers the hacked CRU documents and the victory this represents for the truth and the ongoing effort to defeat the New World Order. Dr. Tim Ball On the Significance of the CRU Hacked Documents Corbett Report | Retired climatologist Dr. Tim Ball talks about the significance of the recently leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University.Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research The Hill | Inhofe announced he would probe whether the U.N.’s IPCC “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.”Call For Independent Inquiry Into Climategate as Global Warming Fraud Implodes   Paul Joseph WatsonPrison Planet.comMonday, November 23, 2009  Calls for an independent inquiry into what is being dubbed “Climategate” are growing as the foundation for man-made global warming implodes following the release of emails which prove researchers colluded to manipulate data in order to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.Former British chancellor Lord Lawson was the latest to demand an impartial investigation be launched into the scandal, which arrives just weeks before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. “They should set up a public inquiry under someone who is totally respected and get to the truth,” he told the BBC Radio Four Today programme.The emails were leaked at the end of last week after hackers penetrated the servers of the Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University of East Anglia, in eastern England. The CRU is described as one of the leading climate research bodies in the world.The hacked documents and communications reveal how top scientists conspired to falsify data in the face of declining global temperatures in order to prop up the premise that man-made factors are driving climate change. Others illustrate how they embarked on a venomous and coordinated campaign to ostracize climate skeptics and use their influence to keep dissenting reports from appearing in peer-reviewed journals, as well as using cronyism to avoid compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests.As expected, the establishment media has gone into whitewash overdrive, characterizing the emails as evidence of “rancor” amongst the climate community and focusing on some of the lesser emails while ignoring the true significance of what has been revealed.Organizations with close ties to the CRU have engaged in psychological terrorism by fearmongering about the planet with doomsday scenarios, illustrating their argument with  outlandish propaganda animation videos which show pets drowning and others that show  computer-generated polar bears crashing to earth in a throwback to 9/11 victims jumping from the towers, when in reality polar bear population figures are thriving.“One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones, the centre’s director, in 1999, reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] 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,” reports the London Telegraph.The author admitted to the Associated Press that the e mail was genuine.In another example, researchers discuss data that is “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”. Apparently, the “real temperatures” are whatever global warming cheerleaders want them to be.As Anthony Watts writes, attempts to claim e mails are “out of context,” as the defense has been from CRU, cannot apply in this instance.You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.Another email discusses changing temperature data to fix “blips” in studies so as to make them conform with expectations, which of course is the cardinal sin of scientific research.“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, writes Andrew Bolt.Another email appears to celebrate the death of climate change skeptic John L Daly, with the words, “In an odd way this is cheering news.”In another communication, the author expresses his fantasy to “beat the crap out of” climate change skeptics.In another exchange, researchers appear to discuss ways to discredit James Saiers of the Geophysical Research Letters journal, by means of an academic witch hunt, because of his sympathies with climate change skeptics.“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.”Other emails express doubt about whether the world is really heating up and infer that data needs to be reinterpreted.“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.”Scientists discuss trying to disguise historical data that contradicts the man-made climate change thesis, such as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which must be ‘contained’ according to one email.Suppression of evidence is also discussed, with scientists resolving to delete embarrassing emails.“And, perhaps most reprehensibly,” writes James Delingpole, 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.”“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?”“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.”“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!”Scientists also “discussed ways of dodging Freedom of Information Act requests to release temperature data,” reports the Daily Mail.The emails show that scientists relied on cronyism and cosying up to FOIA officials to prevent them from being forced to release data.“When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests,’ the email says. “It took a couple of half-hour sessions to convince them otherwise.”“Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the chief librarian – who deals with appeals.”It is important to stress that this compendium merely scratches the surface of the monumental levels of fraud that have been exposed as a result of the hacked emails.People will look back on this moment as the beginning of the end for global warming alarmism and the agenda to implement draconian measures of regulation and control along with the levy of a global carbon tax.Many more revelations will be forthcoming as a result of this leak, and the desperate effort on behalf of the establishment to whitewash the whole issue will only end up making the damage worse.
#6 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:27:12 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494


Please put that into paragraphs or just post the link that you lifted it from


#7 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:37:24 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Mawfez, I'm sorry, I tried twice to post that, and I went in and tried editing it once, to boot also. I added three blank lines between my paragraphs, and the forums posting software still runs it all together.

If I knew how to remedy that I would have.

Still, figure it is important enough to post.

It came to me as an email with hyperlinks and credits for all the sources. They are still there, you'll just ahve to copy and paste them from that endless paragraph that the posting software turned it into.


#8 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 9:21:43 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494


This article explains well why so many don't believe the hyperbole of the lying scientists & the algores of the world who ALL profit financially from AGW-hysteria - Insulting the messenger doesn't change the facts that AGW is itself man-made-manure, infact "once you begin hurling insults instead of an argument, the insults are thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits & becomes an 'argumentum ad hominem'"

The Climate-Change Travesty
December 6, 2009 By George Will
With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate change meeting. Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices.

China, nimble at the politics of pretending that is characteristic of climate change theater, promises only to reduce its "carbon intensity" -- carbon emissions per unit of production. So China's emissions will rise.

Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen.

Disclosure of e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Unit in Britain -- a collaborator with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- reveals some scientists' willingness to suppress or massage data and rig the peer review process and the publication of scholarly work. The CRU materials also reveal paranoia on the part of scientists who believe that in trying to engineer "consensus" and alarm about warming, they are a brave and embattled minority. Actually, never in peacetime history has the government-media-academic complex been in such sustained propagandistic lockstep about any subject.

The Washington Post learns an odd lesson from the CRU materials: "Climate scientists should not let themselves be goaded by the irresponsibility of the deniers into overstating the certainties of complex science or, worse, censoring discussion of them." These scientists overstated and censored because they were "goaded" by skepticism?

Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.

Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic manmade warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.

The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling." If so, then could anything make the case less compelling? A CRU e-mail says: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment" -- this "moment" is in its second decade -- "and it is a travesty that we can't."

The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom.

Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends. So some of them consider it virtuous to embroider facts, exaggerate certitudes, suppress inconvenient data, and manipulate the peer review process to suppress scholarly dissent and, above all, to declare that the debate is over.

Consider the sociology of science, the push and pull of interests, incentives, appetites and passions. Governments' attempts to manipulate Earth's temperature now comprise one of the world's largest industries. Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies. Political, commercial, academic and journalistic prestige and advancement can be contingent on not disrupting the (postulated) consensus that is propelling the gigantic and fabulously lucrative industry of combating global warming.

Copenhagen is the culmination of the post-Kyoto maneuvering by people determined to fix the world's climate by breaking the world's -- especially America's -- population to the saddle of ever-more-minute supervision by governments. But Copenhagen also is prologue for the 2010 climate change summit in Mexico City, which will be planet Earth's last chance, until the next one.


John Edward Mercier
#9 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 10:09:42 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Its the same thing as the original post... with a little conspiracy theory added in.

We don't have national sovereignty, because we're a Union of Sovereign States. So all treaty needs to be ratified by Congress... and somehow I don't see Congress agreeing to taxing authority for the UN.

And Cap & Trade is a US-based taxation... it isn't an international-based system. The UN has requested the power to tax carbon, but they aren't discussing any Cap & Trade. They're focused on a direct excise tax.


#10 Posted : Sunday, December 06, 2009 11:04:12 PM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
John Edward Mercier
#11 Posted : Monday, December 07, 2009 2:58:04 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494

Massachussets vs. EPA Supreme Court ruling.



#12 Posted : Monday, December 07, 2009 2:58:04 AM
Rank: Guest

Posts: 134,494
The Wall Street Journal has also been doing a wonderful job at exposing the lies, the profiteers (think Algore) & the fraudulent "science"& "scientists" behind the Enron-style scam that the UN & many governments wish to impose on us all.....a.k.a. Cap&Tax/Cap&Trade due to supposed Global Warming which only occurred after Global Freezing failed, which is now known as "climate change" due to the Failure of global warming. 

Anyways, this is an elightening synopsis of the past few weeks:

So many new developments: which story do we pick? Maybe best to summarise, instead. After all, it’s not like you’re going to find much of this reported in the MSM.
1. Australia’s Senate rejects Emissions Trading Scheme for a second time. Or: so turkeys don’t vote Christmas. Expect to see a lot more of this: politicians starting to become aware their party’s position on AGW is completely out of kilter with the public mood and economic reality. Kevin Rudd’s Emissions Trading Scheme – what Andrew Bolt calls “a $114 billion green tax on everything” – would have wreaked havoc on the coal-dependent Australian economy. That’s why several opposition Liberal frontbenchers resigned rather than vote with the Government on ETS; why Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull lost his job; and why the Senate voted down the ETS.

2. Danes caught fiddling their carbon credits. (Hat tip: Philip Stott) Carbon trading is the Emperor’s New Clothes of international finance. It was invented by none other than Ken Lay, whose Enron would currently be one of the prime beneficiaries in the global alternative energy market, if it hadn’t been shown to be (nearly) as fraudulent as the current AGW scam. It is a licence to fleece, cheat and rob. Still, jolly embarrassing for the Danes to get caught red handed, what with their hosting a conference shortly in which the world’s leaders will try, straight-faced, to persuade us that carbon emissions trading is the only viable way of defeating ManBearPig.

3. Hats off to The Daily Express – the first British newspaper to make the AGW scam its front page story.
The piece was inspired by another bravura performance by Professor Ian Plimer, the Aussie geologist who argues that climate change has been going on quite naturally, oblivious of human activity, for the last 4,567 million years.

4. BBC finally gets round to reporting – sort of – that Climatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia may have been up to no good. It’s true that this report on their website is so hedged with special pleading for the temporarily suspended director Phil Jones the man might have written it himself. But on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning, I did hear the newsreader reporting it as more than just a routine theft story. Which is a start.

5. Legal actions ahoy! Over the next few weeks, one thing we can be absolutely certain of is concerted efforts by the rich, powerful and influential AGW lobby to squash the Climategate story. We’ve seen this already in the “nothing to see here” response of Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the jet-setting, troll-impersonating railway engineer who runs the IPCC and wants to stop ice being served with water in restaurants. This is why those of us who oppose his scheme to carbon-tax the global economy back to the dark ages must do everything in our power to bring the scandal to a wider audience. One way to do this is law suits.
At Ian Plimer’s lunch talk yesterday, Viscount Monckton talked of at least two in the offing – both by scientists, one British, one Canadian, who intend to pursue the CRU for criminal fraud. Their case, quite simply, is that the scientists implicated in Climategate have gained funding and career advancement by twisting data, hiding evidence, and shutting out dissenters by corrupting the peer-review process. More news on this, as I hear it.
Lord Monckton has written an indispensible summary of the Climategate revelations so far.

6. Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:
“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 66% Off the Cover Price

First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Lighten the Strain on the Earth and Your Budget

MOTHER EARTH NEWS is the guide to living — as one reader stated — “with little money and abundant happiness.” Every issue is an invaluable guide to leading a more sustainable life, covering ideas from fighting rising energy costs and protecting the environment to avoiding unnecessary spending on processed food. You’ll find tips for slashing heating bills; growing fresh, natural produce at home; and more. MOTHER EARTH NEWS helps you cut costs without sacrificing modern luxuries.

At MOTHER EARTH NEWS, we are dedicated to conserving our planet’s natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. That’s why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.00 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.00 for 6 issues.