Climategate claims first victims

[valvano]

The religion of global warming is starting to collapse as the scam that it is, thanks to the hackers who have let loose the emails. I am sure many of you tree huggers here have mixed feelings. You so desparately want to believe in global warming and Al Gore, yet you also love the hacker mentality.

Wonder when a class action suit will be filed against Al Gore to recover ticket sales for his scam move "An Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

[Drederick Tatum]

so what, in your mind, pollution isn't actually pollution, it's economic earth enhancement?

you really believe in a worldwide environment conspiracy?

[Burnout18]

I was never sold on Global warming, i'm still not, but if it was what pushed environmental laws and ordinances then i say its a win win for everyone.

Hey shouldn't you be busy in another thread blaming liberal policies and government incompetence for cops being shot in Washington?

[Bob]

I am sure many of you tree huggers here have mixed feelings. You so desparately want to believe in global warming and Al Gore, yet you also love the hacker mentality.

what the fuck are you talking about?

[travesty]

Environmentalism to me is the just the newest religion for people who don't want to beleive in a diety, they believe in "Mother Earth". I choose not to get too crazy with either religion or environmentalism. However both propose things that to me are just good ideas and make sense for everyone to live by.

Love your neighbor
Don't murder
Don't Steal
Don't Lie
Don't cheat
Recycle and re-use
Don't litter
Don't waste
Don't pollute

All of that just seems like common sense to me...why do people have to get so insane about it? Well that's easy....$$$$$$

[Schmeltz]

Let me guess: the "victims" are those of us on the BBMB who have to endure your silly bullshit excuse for commentary and opinion.

[travesty]

What victims? Are you talking to me?

[valvano]

Let me guess: the "victims" are those of us on the BBMB who have to endure your silly bullshit excuse for commentary and opinion.

um, it looks like the true source of bull shit are all these scientists who have propagandized the so called global warming farce.

:D

[YoungRemy]

fuck the Earth, man!

[Burnout18]

Hey everybody lets go back to polluting, The earth is safe!

[freetibet]

The largest source of carbodioxyde are the oceans (like 98% or so). And all the global warming propaganda spat out by useful dummies like the environmentalists and leftists eventually serves the very greedy capitalists who benefit from it all, ie people buy new environment-friendly cars, refrigerators etc. and spend $ millions on it. Not to mention that such policy beats the crap out of underdeveloped countries which aren't capable of producing eco-friendly stuff (but hey, I don't care, they hate us after all).

[Drederick Tatum]

Us? you're from Poland, underdeveloped is what you do best.

[rirv]

Global warming is definitely a capitalist conspiracy by those left wing socialist fascist nut jobs who run the media. It's all designed to make literally $1 billion. We need to listen to those paragons of fiscal responsibility and models of charity who run the oil companies. It's not fair that they are losing out on so much money through this hippy bullshit.

Seriously, people who think climate change (in case the warming part of global warming confuses you when it snows) is totally made up by some kind of eco-money making scheme need to get a grip and learn what the fuck objectivity is. No, don't believe everything you read, but equally don't believe everything you read about not believing everything you read.

There are vast swathes of evidence - peer reviewed scientific evidence (by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist so you don't need to use any of his evidence) - which suggests that the climate of the Earth is changing due to mankind's pollution. Yes, there are anomalies here and there, the odd expert may have fucked up or sent an email he or she shouldn't have, but the overall picture is that we are going to face, at some point in the future, huge changes to the way people on this planet live.

A typical example of the bullshit "anti-climate change" idiots come out with is what freetibet just wrote: oceans emit 98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Did you just make that up? Did you copy it off some blog? I really want to know where you got that idea from because it is utter bullshit. The world's oceans actually ABSORB (the opposite of emit) CO2. Specifically, they absorb manmade CO2. The problem now is that because of the massive amounts of CO2 mankind has been emitting the oceans are struggling to keep up. It's like when you fill up the sink. Eventually it gets full. And then it overflows and you ruin the carpet.

[valvano]

Global warming is definitely a capitalist conspiracy by those left wing socialist fascist nut jobs who run the media. It's all designed to make literally $1 billion. We need to listen to those paragons of fiscal responsibility and models of charity who run the oil companies. It's not fair that they are losing out on so much money through this hippy bullshit.

Seriously, people who think climate change (in case the warming part of global warming confuses you when it snows) is totally made up by some kind of eco-money making scheme need to get a grip and learn what the fuck objectivity is. No, don't believe everything you read, but equally don't believe everything you read about not believing everything you read.

There are vast swathes of evidence - peer reviewed scientific evidence (by the way, Al Gore is not a scientist so you don't need to use any of his evidence) - which suggests that the climate of the Earth is changing due to mankind's pollution. Yes, there are anomalies here and there, the odd expert may have fucked up or sent an email he or she shouldn't have, but the overall picture is that we are going to face, at some point in the future, huge changes to the way people on this planet live.

A typical example of the bullshit "anti-climate change" idiots come out with is what freetibet just wrote: oceans emit 98% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Did you just make that up? Did you copy it off some blog? I really want to know where you got that idea from because it is utter bullshit. The world's oceans actually ABSORB (the opposite of emit) CO2. Specifically, they absorb manmade CO2. The problem now is that because of the massive amounts of CO2 mankind has been emitting the oceans are struggling to keep up. It's like when you fill up the sink. Eventually it gets full. And then it overflows and you ruin the carpet.


yes, we all know that until man showed up on this earth that the temperatures never changed....:rolleyes:

maybe us doubters would be more willing to at least be open to the idea if those of differing opinions werent shut down in academia, govt, etc.....

calling somebody "anti-environment" is getting to be as big a liberal joke is calling somebody a 'homophobe" or a "racists" or a "war monger" simply because they prevent a point of view liberals don't agree with....

[rirv]

Yes, the global temperature changes naturally. However, the current changes can demonstratably be linked to man made emissions. They are far beyond any natural changes in temperature which occur over many thousands of years imperceptibly. Current rises in global temperatures are happening very quickly.

I think it is fair to call someone anti-environment if they believe that mankind should continue his abuse of the planet. This particular debate isn't about opinion or how people feel about something - it is about matter of fact science. Generally, people who are wrong do not get their views aired publically. That is why those with a different "opinion" are "shut down" in whatever outlet you want to call liberal. It's like having a maths conference and giving half the debate over to the man who is convinced that 2+2=5.

[valvano]

look what's happening in your UK:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVM701&show_article=1

and if its all about the environment, why was Al Gore going to charge $1,200 / handshake at an event?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-1-200-handshake-event-copenhagen

It costs a lot of money to fly all those polluting private jets to environment summits:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece

how can they do this when people are starving in Africa?? :D

[YoungRemy]

calling somebody "anti-environment" is getting to be as big a liberal joke is calling somebody a 'homophobe" or a "racists" or a "war monger" simply because they prevent a point of view liberals don't agree with....

the common denominator here is not the "point of view liberals don't agree with", but the viewpoints in which you consistently espouse and align yourself with...

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=92988

sorry you don't like black people and get called a racist in the process...:(:o(lb)

[Echewta]

So this thread is going to turn into Gore bashing and another "you liberals don't like it."

You think we would have learned our lessons from the dinosaurs industrial revolution and all of the problems that caused.

[rirv]

look what's happening in your UK:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVM701&show_article=1

and if its all about the environment, why was Al Gore going to charge $1,200 / handshake at an event?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/03/al-gore-cancels-1-200-handshake-event-copenhagen

It costs a lot of money to fly all those polluting private jets to environment summits:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/celebrity/article6931572.ece

how can they do this when people are starving in Africa?? :D
To be honest I don't think you read a word I wrote. I acknowledged that some scientists had obviously made some mistakes with their emails. That doesn't mean every climate change scientist the world over is involved in a conspiracy.

I also mentioned that Al Gore was not a scientist. I have never seen his film, nor heard a word he has ever said about climate change.

And yes, it does cost a lot of money to fly private jets to environment summits - the pollution impact too is great - however I think for a conference which could possibly make a real change to the direction of the world it is a small price to pay.

As for starving Africans - that is a whole other topic which merits huge discussion. There is more than enough money and food in this world to go around however that sounds a bit like socialism and that is evil.

We do, however, only have one planet and we should look after it.

PS valvano, why do you keep using that big :D grinning smiley face? It doesn't make sense.

[HAL 9000]

The religion of global warming is starting to collapse as the scam that it is, thanks to the hackers who have let loose the emails. I am sure many of you tree huggers here have mixed feelings. You so desparately want to believe in global warming and Al Gore, yet you also love the hacker mentality.

Wonder when a class action suit will be filed against Al Gore to recover ticket sales for his scam move "An Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CAM0VG0&show_article=1

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html

I am actually quite impressed that you acknowledge that religion is bullshit. Usually people who adopt your exact suite of political views do so under the influence of extreme religious fundamentalism.

I would have put money on you being a creationist for example. Anyway good for you, although you are, of course, completely wrong about Global Warming. It is not religion, it is an observed fact and the theory that man is causing it is well supported by a large body of evidence.

But even it wasn't - the fact that it is at least plausible that manmade CO2 is contributing to warming (no one is denying it is a greenhouse gas after all) means that we should be making efforts to stop cut emissions - because the consequence of getting this wrong IS THE COLLAPSE OF OUR ENTIRE FUCKING CIVILISATION!!!!

What if there was a 10% chance that manmade CO2 was warming the globe? Should we ignore that risk? What if there is a bullet in one of the six chambers of a gun, do you put it to your head and pull the trigger beacuase the idea that the gun might be loaded is a liberal conspiracyt?

[travesty]

But even if it wasn't - the fact that it is at least plausible that manmade CO2 is contributing to warming (no one is denying it is a greenhouse gas after all) means that we should be making efforts to stop cut emissions - because the consequence of getting this wrong IS THE COLLAPSE OF OUR ENTIRE FUCKING CIVILISATION!!!!

What if there was a 10% chance that manmade CO2 was warming the globe? Should we ignore that risk? What if there is a bullet in one of the six chambers of a gun, do you put it to your head and pull the trigger beacuase the idea that the gun might be loaded is a liberal conspiracyt?

Solid reasoning HAL. But hopefully this at least dampens the hysteria. It was getting wayyyy too out of hand. Should we work to make things better? Obviously, yes. Are we going to die off within a century or two if we don't? No.

[valvano]

the common denominator here is not the "point of view liberals don't agree with", but the viewpoints in which you consistently espouse and align yourself with...

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=92988

sorry you don't like black people and get called a racist in the process...:(:o(lb)

what's racists or inaccurate about what I wrote other than the fact you dont agree with it?

[Schmeltz]

I don't know why any of you are humouring this truck-driving intellectual throwback; he's not debating the science, the facts, or anybody on this board. He's debating Al Gore's spending habits. Or something. Whatever straw man he can come up with.

[valvano]

I don't know why any of you are humouring this truck-driving intellectual throwback; he's not debating the science, the facts, or anybody on this board. He's debating Al Gore's spending habits. Or something. Whatever straw man he can come up with.

while I am in the trucking industry, I am not a truck driver. but i can tell by the snide tone of your comment that you don't like truck drivers...

you must be a truckerphobe....:D

[The Notorious LOL]

I was gonna type something, but this is just too moronic to warrant a serious response.

[Bob]

I was gonna type something, but this is just too moronic to warrant a serious response.

you can use my response if you want, i feel like it was pretty on the ball

[yeahwho]

This has turned into a science fiction scenario. Complete with overwhelming factual evidence of unacceptable CO2 emissions and concentrations, multiple thousands of scientists agreeing on this conclusion, then we have a few hundred who disagree.

The skeptics and denialist's will always be among us and I welcome them to the debate. The problem is I take this topic very seriously.

I feel as if I'm debating cancer with somebody who smokes cigarettes because that person found one doctor out of 100,000 who says the jury is still out on whether cigarettes are actually harmful to humans.

And to think that Al Gore had anything to do with my decision to look into why CO2 concentrations in the past century have increased is ludicrous. George Bush (http://www.nrdc.org/BushRecord/) actually is the guy who motivated me to start investigating CO2.

I'll say it again, you cannot reboot earth.

[Schmeltz]

you must be a truckerphobe....:D

Actually I'm an idiotphobe. You terrify me.

[travesty]

I'll say it again, you cannot reboot earth.

The Earth is going to be just fine. We just might not be here to see it.

[valvano]

The Earth is going to be just fine. We just might not be here to see it.

funny thing, but in the 1970s before most of you kids were born, the same folks now pushing global warming were pushing global cooling...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

funny thing how in just 25-30 so called scientist and experts have swapped one hysteria for another..

[Bob]

funny thing, but in the 1970s before most of you kids were born, the same folks now pushing global warming were pushing global cooling...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

funny thing how in just 25-30 so called scientist and experts have swapped one hysteria for another..

you were no older than 13 in the 70s but you were still following the science of climate change? i've underestimated you valvano, you've clearly done your research

[Schmeltz]

funny thing how in just 25-30 so called scientist and experts have swapped one hysteria for another..

Funny thing how three decades of observation, data accumulation, and technological progress could somehow mysteriously alter a scientific consensus. I wonder if anything else about human society and culture has changed in those thirty years?

Christ you're a joke.

[yeahwho]

The Earth is going to be just fine. We just might not be here to see it.

True.

It is sad that we, as a civilization and as a species are so nonchalant about saving ourselves.

[HAL 9000]

funny thing, but in the 1970s before most of you kids were born, the same folks now pushing global warming were pushing global cooling...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/03/climate-science-gore-intelligent-technology-sutton.html

funny thing how in just 25-30 so called scientist and experts have swapped one hysteria for another..


This is the core of evidence based reasoning and the scientific approach. When new data comes along, you reject old hypotheses that dont fit and form new ones that do. You started this post by calling global warming a religion. Now you are noting that the scientific community changes its view based on the latest and best evidence. I wish you would make up your mind - or are you just throwing as much mud as you can find until some sticks?

The alternative to this approach is to be a reality denying ideologue. Such people can be right sometimes, but only by luck in the same way that a broken watch is right twice a day. This is what you appear to be.

As an aside, I think part of the problem with this topic is the need for it to be played out in public - most people (myself included) are not strong on the fundamental concepts needed to really grasp the evidence e.g. it is complicated and most people wouldnt know a confidence limit if it bit them on the nose.

One key problem is that the climate is impacted by many variables and Co2 emissions are just one. We lack the data to fully control for the other variables which is why this is such a difficult topic. It is actually fairly irrelevent whether temperatures are going up or down, what matters is whether there is a causal relationship between temperature and Co2. Logic would suggest that there should be and the data we have shows a strong correlation, but it is difficult to clearly demonstrate causation.

The earth could be cooling but still being subjected to upward pressure by our emissions. It doesnt mean there is not a problem.

[Echewta]

Its true, not enough people know what global warming really means.

Its cold in Los Angeles right now (50s which is cold here) and people make comments like "Global Warming my ass" or "Why is there snow on the mountains if the earth is getting hotter?" :rolleyes:

[travesty]

I hate hearing that, everytime it's cold here in NC someone has to spout off with the inevitable "Global warning my ass!". It is a hard concept to grasp based on what you see around you everyday though. I grew up in upstate NY and when I was little I remember the winters being wicked. Tons of snow, lots of snow days off from school and plenty of shoveling the driveway. During the nineties when I was off to college and through most of the decade, the winters were super mild in NY. Not much snow, lots of mud and plenty of days of 33 degrees and raining. Mom (a teacher) had more than a few years with no snow days from school at all. The ski areas really struggled to survive. That's when the whole "global warming" idea really made sense to me. I felt like I was witnessing it first hand. The last 5 or so years it's seems like it's back to harsh, mega-snow winters. Makes me say WTF? My point is that many people do not take the time to gain an even basic understanding of the science and are basing their opinions of it purely on their own perceptions of the weather from year to year. And that can be dangerously misleading.

[rirv]

The last 45 seconds are priceless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEGBgHxNTQ

I'd be interested to see how different people interpret the clip - who is the victim? Who is being unreasonable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk#t=4m20s

[ericg]

it's no contest. climategate underrates reality. but climategate or not, the earth has been and is being raped and at a billion more people every 10 years, we need to take it with utmost sense of seriousness and urgency. there will always be people trying to scam the weather in this lifetime. it's devastating at this point. but i think it's senseless to debate the seriousness or validity of saving our planet from our own devices. we should have clean energy by now. it's not unknown. but people want to keep getting richer off the destruction of the planet. i do believe in climate change. that's what i was taught in college. i think everything you learn in college is underrated by the capitalists of our time though. i did an entire research paper on it before gore came out with his deal. i don't care what anyone says, you shouldn't fuck with planet earth or its climate... period

[yeahwho]

The last 45 seconds are priceless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEGBgHxNTQ

I'd be interested to see how different people interpret the clip - who is the victim? Who is being unreasonable?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoBTsMJ4jNk#t=4m20s

Thanks for both of those videos. I went on to read some more about both Professor Andrew Watson and Marc Morano and it becomes fairly obvious quite quickly which one has the upper hand in the brains department.

As always, stay away from the salmon mousse.

[DroppinScience]

I hate hearing that, everytime it's cold here in NC someone has to spout off with the inevitable "Global warning my ass!". It is a hard concept to grasp based on what you see around you everyday though. I grew up in upstate NY and when I was little I remember the winters being wicked. Tons of snow, lots of snow days off from school and plenty of shoveling the driveway. During the nineties when I was off to college and through most of the decade, the winters were super mild in NY. Not much snow, lots of mud and plenty of days of 33 degrees and raining. Mom (a teacher) had more than a few years with no snow days from school at all. The ski areas really struggled to survive. That's when the whole "global warming" idea really made sense to me. I felt like I was witnessing it first hand. The last 5 or so years it's seems like it's back to harsh, mega-snow winters. Makes me say WTF? My point is that many people do not take the time to gain an even basic understanding of the science and are basing their opinions of it purely on their own perceptions of the weather from year to year. And that can be dangerously misleading.

This is an excellent point, and seems to reinforce how universal the concept "Global warming my ass!" is whenever it gets cold no matter where you live. Here in Alberta, we've hit a sudden cold snap over the weekend with a ton of snow and no doubt in my mind someone uttered "Global warming my ass." Of course, a few weeks before we had a record-breaking warm streak but any kind of unseasonably warm weather around here is quickly forgotten when the weather goes sour. Actually, come to think of it, in the last few months we have alternated between it being unseasonably warm and unseasonably cold depending on the week. Is this indicative of climate change/global warming? I'm not sure, but the weather report for one particle region at one random point in time doesn't really give us much to work with.

[HAL 9000]

This is an excellent point, and seems to reinforce how universal the concept "Global warming my ass!" is whenever it gets cold no matter where you live. Here in Alberta, we've hit a sudden cold snap over the weekend with a ton of snow and no doubt in my mind someone uttered "Global warming my ass." Of course, a few weeks before we had a record-breaking warm streak but any kind of unseasonably warm weather around here is quickly forgotten when the weather goes sour. Actually, come to think of it, in the last few months we have alternated between it being unseasonably warm and unseasonably cold depending on the week. Is this indicative of climate change/global warming? I'm not sure, but the weather report for one particle region at one random point in time doesn't really give us much to work with.

I suspect (but am not sure) that the recent facination of weather presenters with record tempteratures (hottest July since 1982 etc) is quite misleading. And this is part of my problem with the politicisation of the issue. I dont think, that our daily experience of the weather, is yet, being influenced by the global warming effect.

The actual effect is estimated to be around 0.5 degrees C over the course of the 20th century, I am not sure this is enough of an effect to actually generate noticable differences in our local environments (could be wrong about this of course).

I think that, as common as it is, to get the 'global warming my ass' reaction to cold days, we also see the oppoesite reaction to hot days and extreme weather events. I mean if you measure enough different things, you are going to often get the most extreme 'something' since records began most years.

I think that most people see weather reporters saying 'this is a result of global warming' and are rightly skeptical which brings the whole movement into disrepute. People can tell that politicians are bullshitting them (on both sides) and the objective science is easily lost in the row.

I think that on both sides there are a lot of people suffering from 'confirmation bias' and there is a lot of political grandstanding going on. Ultimately it comes down to extrapolating the raw data which is extremely difficult to do (for reasons of statistical certainty). Based on our models, the 0.5 degree increase we have seen so far will become a become something like a 1.5 - 6.5 degree increase - the wide margin for error reflects the uncertainty in modelling forward 100 years based on only about 80 years of good historical data.

My plan for saving the world is growing trees then chopping them down and storing them in vast concrete bunkers thus traping carbon out of the atmostphere. The bunkers could act as climate balasts, you open them and allow the wood to rot if it gets too cold and you want higher temperature or fill them up again to lower temperatures again.

Would probably need a lot of wood though.

[valvano]

more leaks, more hysteria, more "Sky is Falling" from Copenhagen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

:p

[valvano]

too bad we cant post images here, but for you all that are both history buffs and concerned about global warming, you may appreciate this:

http://img20.imageshack.us/i/agwdewey.jpg/

:D

[saz]

those who are championing climage change denial and skepticism are being completely manipulated and fed misinformation, confusion and lies by the lobbyists of major industries.

the non-partisan, non-profit, washington based watchdog organization citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org/state-ethics) has discovered and documented in a new report (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43564) that twenty-two former bush administration officials who were responsible for climage change policy are currently employed by major industries (such as oil, gas and mining) and are lobbying against curbing climate change. fourteen of the twenty-two officials employed by these major industries are now registered lobbyists.

the most infamous circumstance in this matter involves philip cooney. cooney worked for the council on environmental quality, but quit in 2005 after he altered climate studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/11cooney.long.html) in order to minimize and curtail climate change evidence. before joining the council on environmental quality, cooney's employer was the american petroleum institute, and after he left the council on environmental quality, he went to work for exxon-mobil.


Through lobbying and industry-manufactured 'grassroots' activities, these individuals continue to influence and confuse the debate over global warming and hamper the efforts of the current administration to help establish a public consensus on this issue.

[Echewta]

too bad we cant post images here, but for you all that are both history buffs and concerned about global warming, you may appreciate this:

http://img20.imageshack.us/i/agwdewey.jpg/

:D

Smoking was once considered good for you and healthy :D

[valvano]

those who are championing climage change denial and skepticism are being completely manipulated and fed misinformation, confusion and lies by the lobbyists of major industries.

the non-partisan, non-profit, washington based watchdog organization citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington (http://www.citizensforethics.org/state-ethics) has discovered and documented in a new report (http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/43564) that twenty-two former bush administration officials who were responsible for climage change policy are currently employed by major industries (such as oil, gas and mining) and are lobbying against curbing climate change. fourteen of the twenty-two officials employed by these major industries are now registered lobbyists.

the most infamous circumstance in this matter involves philip cooney. cooney worked for the council on environmental quality, but quit in 2005 after he altered climate studies (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/11cooney.long.html) in order to minimize and curtail climate change evidence. before joining the council on environmental quality, cooney's employer was the american petroleum institute, and after he left the council on environmental quality, he went to work for exxon-mobil.


former Bush guys go into oil, gas, mining... Obama invites only union guys and educrats to his "jobs" summit...whats the difference???:confused:

[yeahwho]

former Bush guys go into oil, gas, mining... Obama invites only union guys and educrats to his "jobs" summit...whats the difference???:confused:

You know if there was such a thing as a "Sarah Palin speaking points" random generator embedded here, that would be you valvano.

[saz]

former Bush guys go into oil, gas, mining... Obama invites only union guys and educrats to his "jobs" summit...whats the difference???:confused:

you're completely missing the point that the fossil fuel industry is behind the misinformation campaign and only cares about maximizing their profit margin.

[saz]

here's a shocker:


Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange), Friday 2 February 2007


Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"The IPCC process is probably the most thorough and open review undertaken in any discipline. This undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific community and the ability of governments to take on sound scientific advice," he said.

The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.

"Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy."

One American scientist turned down the offer, citing fears that the report could easily be misused for political gain. "You wouldn't know if some of the other authors might say nothing's going to happen, that we should ignore it, or that it's not our fault," said Steve Schroeder, a professor at Texas A&M university.

The contents of the IPCC report have been an open secret since the Bush administration posted its draft copy on the internet in April. It says there is a 90% chance that human activity is warming the planet, and that global average temperatures will rise by another 1.5 to 5.8C this century, depending on emissions.

Lord Rees of Ludlow, the president of the Royal Society, Britain's most prestigious scientific institute, said: "The IPCC is the world's leading authority on climate change and its latest report will provide a comprehensive picture of the latest scientific understanding on the issue. It is expected to stress, more convincingly than ever before, that our planet is already warming due to human actions, and that 'business as usual' would lead to unacceptable risks, underscoring the urgent need for concerted international action to reduce the worst impacts of climate change. However, yet again, there will be a vocal minority with their own agendas who will try to suggest otherwise."

Ben Stewart of Greenpeace said: "The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash."

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming. Confirmed VIPs attending include Nigel Lawson and David Bellamy, who believes there is no link between burning fossil fuels and global warming.

[saz]

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science: researcher

Megan O’Toole, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 03, 2009


An alleged series of attempted security breaches at the University of Victoria in the run-up to next week's Copenhagen summit on climate change is evidence of a larger effort to discredit climate science, says a renowned B.C. researcher.

Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

"The key thing is to try to find anybody who's involved in any aspect of the IPCC and find something that you can ... take out of context,"Mr. Weaver said, drawing a parallel to the case of British climate researcher Phil Jones, who was forced to step down this week after skeptics seized upon hacked emails they allege point to a plot to exaggerate the threat of climate change.

"People don't like it, so they try to discredit it, and the way they try to discredit it is by attacking the individual responsible for it," Mr. Weaver said.

University of Victoria spokeswoman Patty Pitts said there have also been attempts to hack into climate scientists' computers, as well as incidents in which people impersonated network technicians to try to gain access to campus offices and data. However, those incidents took place at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, she said -- an Environment Canada facility located at the university. As such, Environment Canada would be the investigating agency.

"They have a completely separate computer system from ours," Ms. Pitts said.

The office break-ins took place late last year, Mr. Weaver said, while the other alleged hacking attempts at his colleagues' offices -- all unsuccessful -- took place within the past few months.

Both campus police and the Saanich Police Department helped probe the office break-ins, Ms. Pitts said, but to date, no suspects have been identified nor arrests made.

Sujata Raisinghani, a spokeswoman for Environment Canada, said while the agency has no evidence of "successful" hacking attempts at the climate modelling centre, it cannot comment on "threats against its infrastructure" for security reasons.

"Environment Canada routinely monitors its infrastructure and takes necessary precautions to protect its information assets," she said.

Mr. Weaver believes the timing of the alleged attempts to breach security is linked to the coming Copenhagen summit. In the Jones case, he blasted the media for being sucked in by the minutiae of old emails rather than trying to determine who is ultimately responsible for what he called an agenda-based campaign to discredit climate science.

"The real story in this is, who are these people and why are they doing it?" Mr. Weaver said, noting the Jones controversy was not the result of a "lucky hack" days before the Copenhagen conference. "They're trying to find anything. They don't care what it is."

He believes the campaign is driven by the fossil-fuel industry, citing "a war for public opinion."

In the Jones case, critics contend that a series of hacked emails from the computer systems of the British Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia show scientists have exaggerated the case for man-made global warming. Climate researchers deny any wrongdoing, saying the emails have been taken out of context.

Among those messages is one from Mr. Jones, which reads: "The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. 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."

In another, Kevin Trenberth, a lead IPCC author, writes: "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.... Our observing system is inadequate."

.

[valvano]

Gore tells lies in regards to Climategate:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_gore_falsifies_the_record


Environmentalists put 500 coal workers out of work:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/

Its all about the environment though, right? Limos, private jets, and caviar at Copenhagen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

[rirv]

Is it possible to seperate the science from the politics? I think it absolutely necessary.

Valvano:D I don't think anyone here would agree that leaders at the Copenhagen conference should be swanning around in private jets and eating caviar (shit is disgusting anyway). Also, just because Al Gore once made a film about climate change does not make him the global, singular authority on climate change who's every move should be analysed in a way which either credits or discredits climate science.

Politicians will always act like politicians whether they are discussing bonuses for bankers, climate change, abortion, health care etc. etc. What is crucial is the science behind it, and the fact that we as a species have to face up to the consequences of out actions over the past century and a half.

With regard to the article about 500 jobs being lost because of "pesky environmental activists", I wonder if you have actually read it.

CEO Nicholas J. DeIuliis said the poor economy compounded by legal challenges by environmental activists forced CONSOL to slash jobs.

"It is challenging enough to operate our coal and gas assets in the current economic downturn without having to contend with a constant stream of activism in rehashing and reinterpreting permit applications that have already been approved or in the inequitable oversight of our operations,” he said in a statement. “Customers will grow reluctant to deal with energy producers they perceive are unable to guarantee a reliable supply due to regulatory uncertainty. It inhibits the ability to remain competitive."

The economic situation is mainly responsible for these jobs being lost. I'm willing to bet that the "constant stream" of activism is a suitable cover story for the company. Even if it is not, what is wrong with people sticking up for the environment? If a mining company projects its future earnings on projects where they must know (if they are any good at their jobs) that they will run into legal trouble then they can't blame anyone but themselves.

[Echewta]

Al Gore hates coal!