BS: Climate change: Not??

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 08:14 PM

"A conclusion is the place you go when you are tired of thinking".

"Many of the things you can count don't count. Many of the things you can't count really count."- Albert Einstein

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde

If everything else fails through denial, try eliminating climate change by chanting the verse below:
"Heinasirkka, Heinasirkka, menetaala hiiteen." ("Grasshopper, Grasshopper, go to Hell!") - St Urho (who drove the grasshoppers out of Finland by chanting this phrase)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:29 PM

Nestled? Like Mel Gibson's version? No thanks...

And... at my age, I think "short-term".

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:18 PM

There's no profit in reversing climate decline in the short term. Just long term survival, and what good is that? We'll all be in heaven by the time that becomes an issue, nestled up with Jesus and out of range.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 06:12 PM

sadly, that is probably true....

Let's save 'em anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM

But not the kind of lives that the neo-Nazis would want to be saved, perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 04:09 PM

Here's an example of why we should pursue certain paths no matter what the final details on warming are!

"Cutting greenhouse pollutants could directly save millions of lives worldwide"

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

I doubt if you'll really welcome them on your side, Doug, but the neo Nazi BNP in nBritain are very much in the Climate Change Denial camp. Climate change denial is the new article of faith for the far right

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 01:50 PM

Greggie Boy, I thought you knew that one of the pleasures of my life is providing that brings you joy!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 11:25 AM

The disgraceful efforts of deceit...

Douggie-Boy! You're speaking out against deceit! Congratulations!

I await your indictments of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the BuShite 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' fairytale, Karl Rove, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, the Swift Boat gang, the BuShite policy of supressing scientific data that didn't fit their political agenda, etc., etc., etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:47 AM

Aliens discuss the climate crisis

a

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Leadfingers
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:24 AM

True -- And 100

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:51 AM

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

And there is money in being allowed to pollute the air, water and soil. It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:52 PM

Good question MG.

I will take a stab at the answer.
Controlling the causes of climate change will require government action, and "conservatives" hate that. What we call "conservative" in the US is really "defenders of bu$ine$$". Because we have a fossil fuel economy, there is a lot of money in the fossil fuel industries. These industries, knowing the truth in their heart of hearts (yes, I know some will say they do not have hearts), have decided that it is good business to wring the last drops out of fossil fuels rahter than invest in a transition to an economy based on some other energy source. This is very short sighted. they are maximizing their own lifestyle, by borrowing against the lifestyle of coming generations, but there it is. So, to facilitate this clinging to the old economy, they have hugely bought-off politicians - mostly "conservatives" - who now are monstrously beholden to the fossil fuel industry, so they MUST deny any science that might jeopardize their political lifeline.
Now comes the tricky part.... People who are not wealthy, and can expect no payday from the fossil fuel industry have been taught to listen to the spokespeople for the politicians who have been bought-off by fossil fuels. So, the fabulously wealthy gas bags repeat the talking points that are fed to the bought politicians by the wealthy but dying fossil fuel industry, and because they tie "freedom from government" to other hot button, but completely unrelated, issues like "God, Guns, Gays, Libruls, and the Cultural Elite", people who have absolutely zero stake in fossil fuels are compelled to go along. And they find huge validation on "conservative" blogs and "conservative" radio, etc. All the time not realizing what total pawns they are and how thoroughly they are jeopardizing their own futures, while making people (who do not care one flippin' shit for them) tremendously wealthy.

It is no coincidence that the American Enterprise Institute has been offering a $10,000 reward to any scientist who will publish a paper that disputes the concensus. No shit. They really do. Look it up. Don't believe me. Then look up who funds that Institute.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:45 PM

Why is there this link between being right-wing and being hostile to the notion that we might be damaging the planet we live on, by our activities? If anything, people who hold to genuine conservative principles would be in the fore when it came to trying to stop doing that.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:31 PM

The University of East Anglia is not exactly the cutting edge of world science. *grin*

SPPI ...EXXON!
You will see that there are many links between the sites and groups trying to discredit the research that is telling us of global warming. Lobbyists, 'institutes' with professional sound names that are just a front for propaganda, economists pretending to be scientists...etc.

If enough money is involved, they will tell you anything.....just like the health care lies being put out by conservatives with $$$$$ at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:15 PM

Ah yes.
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
Degree in journalism from Cardiff.
Economic advisor to Margaret Thatcher.
Absolutely zero training in science.
One article published in a non-peer-reviewed science newsletter "Physics and Society".
One hundred and twenty five demonstrable, indisputable errors, detailed here.
That Monckton.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM

Folks, please go back to the site I linked to and download the pdf file as suggested.

It is written by Lord Moncton, who was invited to testify at Congressional hearings on Global Warming, but was banned by Congressional idiot Waxman because Moncton was likely to say things that the usual supects did not want to hear. No science and no freedom of speech wanted, it seems.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:35 PM

TIA

It is not fair in the slightest to show entire emails or to quote actual facts. It ruins one's ability to cherry pick, misquote, falsly attribute, take out of context and invent inconveinient facts that support the corporate status quo.

If you were Sarah Palin, you should be ashamed.

Now stop it before you ruin someone's faith in God or creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:39 PM

I'd have thought Exxon were sharper than that!

"...to discuss a treaty to inflict an unelected and tyrannical global government on us, with vast and unprecedented powers to control all once-free world markets and to tax and regulate the world's wealthier nations for its own enrichment..."

Pot Kettle Black

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:30 PM

Here is some real world.
The SPPI (PDQ's link above) is the latest incarnation of a group funded by......


wait for it......



EXXON!


The founder, Robert Ferguson, has been chief of staff for a string of republican congressmen. He has been a featured speaker for events sponsored by (among others) the West Virginia Coal Association, and the Heartland Institute (themselves funded by Phillip Morris). He has degrees in history and legislative affairs.


EdT is not the naive one.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:01 PM

Ed T,

Your idealism is admirable, but not justified by the happenings in the real eorld.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:00 PM

pdq I don't know whether to laugh or cry looking at that website...

I consider myself open minded, willing to be persuaded either way, so how does limiting carbon emissions "bring freedom, democracy, and prosperity to an instant end worldwide" I wonder?

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:52 PM

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itse"

Exactly. The research and monitoring is done by thousands of scientists....such as atmospheric, oceanographers (chemical, physical and biological) , marine geologists, biological and ecosystem scientists, climatologists, meteriologists, from many world nations. These very specialized scientists....from countries like USA, Canada, UK, Japan Germany, China, France, Russia, Scandanavia... ( yada, yada), all contribute knowledge and play a part in analysizing data and putting reports together on the many related topics. They sit on the many IPCC committees. That is exactly why it is difficult for any few scientists to fake any of the projections and advice. Scientists do not make decisions....they use knowledge to model and provide advice on possible results and theories from particular scenarios.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM

>>>How can one tell if those evidence and math DO so indicate, if the data and the analysis of the data are not presented in an honest manner? The ends do not justify the means, no matter how well intentioned the prevaricator may be.<<<<<

There is no doubt whatsoever that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
There is no doubt whatsoever that we are releasing an unprecedented amount of CO2 into the atmosphere
There is no doubt whatsoever that Methane is 23 times as bad as CO2 and factory farming and the existing millions of beef and milk cattle are releasing that gas into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate.
There is no doubt that rain forests, ocean biomass and other moderators of the Earth's climate are being destroyed by human actions.
There is strong evidence that the Sahara was once a forest, a forest destroyed by agriculture and wood consumption. Look at the Sahara on a map. See how big it is.

Human actions are certainly heating the planet. If there are cooling trends they are in spite of that. Here is an analogy. There is a fire in the room and the air conditioner is working harder and harder. Eventually it with break and that is what some scientists call the "tipping point." Perhaps billions of tons of methane released when the permafrost becomes millions of square miles of rotting, methane producing bog. God help us then.

There is no doubt that some scientists have fudged some data points to gain people's attention. I think that is misguided. Anyone who does not see the reality of what we are doing to this planet does not want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:04 PM

Well, the head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, Dr. Phil Jones has resigned under pressure.

Some people are asking for crimnal investigations because use of public money in perpetuation of this organized fraud.                                                   

                     
                                                    get pdf file of report here

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM

I've never picked blackberries in my garden in late November before.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: pdq
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:15 PM

"The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol..."

~ Wikipoopoo

{IPCC is part of the United Nations and says just what its bosses want}

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Amos
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:28 AM

A review of climate change in Antarctica forecasts that by 2100 the world's seas will have risen to levels previously considered too extreme to be realistic.

The review, Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (PDF), was compiled by 100 scientists associated with the international Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research. Using 20 of the most up-to-date models that take into account the complex behaviour of the ozone hole over Antarctica, as well as the most recent observations of ice loss, the review predicts that the area of sea ice around Antarctica could shrink by 33 per cent – 2.6 million square kilometres – by 2100, leading to a sea-level rise of 1.4 metres.

"This is the first comprehensive review of Antarctic climate change that covers how the climate of the icy continent has changed from deep time," says John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, lead editor of the report. The report also makes predictions about how the Antarctic climate will change over the next century.

For the past 30 years, the hole in the atmosphere's ozone layer above Antarctica has protected the bulk of the continent from the effects of climate change by generating fierce winds. In that time, sea ice around the continent has increased by 10 per cent.

The new report warns that when the ozone hole heals – and it will, possibly by the end of the century – Antarctica will feel the full force of global warming, with temperatures rising by as much as 3 °C by 2100.
From sea ice to sea

The report backs the predictions of Stefan Rahmstorf at Potsdam University, Germany, whose own work suggests that given the speed at which West Antarctica's ice sheets are shrinking, sea levels are likely to rise by 1.4 metres by 2100. In contrast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment, published in 2007, predicted 59 centimetres.

"I am not the one to judge my own paper, but there is indeed [some] indication that these higher numbers – not only from my study, by the way – are now the new mainstream," says Rahmstorf.

The IPCC's sea-level rise projections are considered to be conservative, as they don't take into account the fact that Antarctica's loss of ice will accelerate as temperatures rise over the continent.

By 2100, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone could lose enough ice mass to raise sea levels globally by "tens of centimetres," Turner says.

Despite the transformations climate change will create on Antarctica, the study concludes on an upbeat note: only a few of the continent's species are likely to become extinct by 2100. (NEw Scientist)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:08 AM

Have you read Al Franken's book, "Lies and the lying liars who tell them"?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:10 AM

I believe everything industry funded scientists and science say. They have our interests at heart...not short term profits.

They were right when they said pesticides and cigarette smoke were good for us, acause had good (selective) science to prove it. They were right that air pollution had no impact on environmental health, and acid rain posed no risk for the environment (like Atlantic salmon....that cannot reproduce in some acidic streams anymore).

Auto industry scientists were right to withold information on auto and tire safety information from us....we don't need this type of information, as it just stresses us. They were also right that we should not worry about any food additives or fats they offer to usd each day.

Long live vested interest and industry science....and their paid agents.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:59 AM

It's December 1st and our Lilacs are budding!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:36 AM

In Alaska we are in no doubt about the warming.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: fumblefingers
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 11:00 PM

I believe everything the government says. If my energy prices double, the government will save the polar bears and the glaciers and the spotted owls and CO2 levels will return to whatever they were before man discovered CO2. The temperature was 65°F today, but just as I was going to blame it on global warming, the weatherman says it will snow tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 10:44 PM

I have had Red Hot Pokers (South African flower) in my yard for 20 years. When planted, they bloomed in July and August. Now they bloom in May. They are clearly part of the conspiracy.

When I was in school, the robins disappeared in mid-fall, and we all awaited the first sighting in March or April as a harbinger of the coming spring. Now we have flocks of them all year round. Part of the conspiracy for sure.

I have been visiting the same tropical island for two weeks every March for the last 25 years. I have photo-documented the expanding bleaching of specific coral heads. Fooking conspirators!

I have photos of specific glaciers in the Alps that have retreated to a ghost of their former selves - in my lifetime. They are clearly in on the conspiracy as well.

But, my anecdotes are not scientific evidence. And neither are the rantings of the politically-motivated naysayers who do not begin to even try to understand the science. Blindly parroting demagogues is all that is within their intellectual range.

Don't believe Al Gore. Don't believe Rush Limbaugh....or Huffington, or Hannity, or even TIA. Just please make even a feeble attempt to understand the science before flapping your yap with political/big money talking points.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:43 PM

Doug, my friend, go back and read my post about what I have seen with my own eyes and comment please. Forget what anyone you dont know has written, just respond to what I said. Ok?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:52 PM

I suppose you should have used an Ironic type face, TIA. You've got to remember this is a transnational forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:39 PM

Reality is almost every government organization, political group and private business does its best to control what the media says about them,their orginazation and product....they even hire specialists to train and control their staff to do so....practice what they say to the media with PR specialists, and agressively monitor every media outlet. So, should it be any surprise that scientists are concerned about what is said about them and their advice? Organizations even hand pick reporters and columinists to break their news...to give them an advantage...or to ensure their spin is captured. Even environmental, and non profit groups do what ever they can afford to spin their message to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:36 PM

TIA--I didn't mean to spoil your fun...... but.......

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:26 PM

Just thought I'd post this, because it was just said on the news. Myself, personally I don't give a darn, though I do have my suspicions...
On the news they've said that there were over a thousand E-mails that were found, and some of them are pretty clear, as to what they're about. one of the ones that they read, indicated 'being able to control the media on this..."blah blah blah.",,referring to releasing numbers they apparently knew 'had been adjusted'..or something like that. I wasn't paying as much as attention as I could have been, but I did hear that, and when I came one here, I saw this was at the top of the thread, so I thought I'd pass that on.

Whether its real or not(the e-mails) isn't what I'm wondering...Actually I'm sorta wondering, "Hey, what about those hackers??"....I'm a thinkin', isn't that illegal? I mean, it is like wiretapping...or recording a phone call, without the other party knowing. Has anyone heard anything, about the hackers?

(maybe they thought, they were 'entitled' to a law to break for free, like the difference between an immigrant, and an illegal alien, who knows?) Nonetheless, I think that something should surface about that.
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 05:09 PM

BillD:
Sssshhhh!




Of course it is tongue in cheek.
I wanted to see who might believe it.



But now that the game is up... This bit describes exactly what would have to be involved in a global scientifc conspiracy to fake global climate change.
But those who deny it because of their politics will never see that.
Shame on them for putting politics above the health and well being (perhaps even survival) of their progeny.
Even if they do not "believe in" climate change, they clearly have certainly never encountered the Precautionary Principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:36 PM

What we have here are stolen emails from very few scientists that could clearly be taken out of context by a vested interest. You could likely select a few past emails posted on Mudcat, and, taken out of context, make a good case that all mudcatters are really bad people....but that would not be logical. See the parallell?

There are thousands of scientists (many, but not all, are government scientists) from mant diciplines and countries who are participating in climate studies. Government scientists by nature are cautious people. Scientists by nature question each others work. In the worst case scenario, iIt's hard to comprehend that so many bright people could be duped by a few scientists, as proposed by some....and even some columnists, who already come from a particular position on climate change?

Now to common sense.   We know that climate is changing and has done so since the beginning. It's n o secret that humans are increasingly putting more carbon in the atmosphere. It is logical to say this has no impact. What impact is the question. That is what thousands of global scientists are working together to determine. There is good reason to question all scientific theories. Jumping the gun and negating all the good work done by these scientist throug the past few years...because of a few sketchy emails by a very few scientists does not make any sense at all. Current climate experiences may only be an anomoly....but could be a warning signal we would be wise to heed and investigate. We do the same with other aspects of our lives...now don't we.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 04:18 PM

TIA...I DO hope you are posting that tongue-in-cheek....

That is the silliest bunch of crap I ever hope to read! No one in their right mind would believe that an 'email' would be that stupidly phrased.

(The fake Hitler diaries and the fake Howard Hughes diaries of a few years ago were at least cleverly done.)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:18 PM

Gee Doug... first you exaggerate what the 'Myth' is, then you base an opinion on your own mis-represented take on it, then you quote the Wall Street Journal, which is now controlled by the far right wing likes of Rupert Murdoch, then you simply dismiss Huffington, which is FAR more credible than Rush will ever be.

Seems like you just simply don't want to hear anything that contradicts what you wish to believe.

Those purported emails...*IF* they are real, do NOT represent any large number of serious scientists.

The truth IS the truth IS the truth, and most serious science is only concerned with getting the truth, and we shall see whether their current evaluations are correct,hmmm?

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:18 PM

This is a ridiculously long cut and paster (I'm really sorry), but I cannot find a link to this email to clickify. This is the most damning of the purloined emails, as it reveals the true scope of the conspiracy.

snip****************

From: [e-mail]
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic

Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called "the ordering of men's affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man", which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.

The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master's initial thesis - that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere - had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master's rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to "demonstrate" the Master's thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.

More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master's second grand law - that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet's atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.

Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.

The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.

Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world's glaciers.

Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world's wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world's biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.

The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master's third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.

Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse's head turned up in James Hansen's bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?

Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.

Professor Ernst Kattweizel,
University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden
Temple of the Knights Carbonic

snip****************




by George Monbiot (in The Guardian perhaps?)

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: DougR
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM

I think that it is interesting that those who are wedded to the "Myth" that population caused global warming, which if not stopped will destroy the earth, give no credence at all to the emails recently leaked to the press. Instead, leaders of nations world-wide will be meeting in Copenhagen next month to try to piece together a treaty that will be based on bogus science. Obama will be leading the pack.

The disgraceful efforts of deceit written by the scientists who these folks relied on to provide accurate information are not recognized by the "true believers" and I suppose they never will.

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal contains two articles of recognized experts in the "Opinions" section that these "true believers" should read. I doubt many will though. No likes to see their parade rained on.

And the Huffington Blog? It has about as much credibility as most of you would give to Rush Limbaugh.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 09:09 AM

Yes, it's past time to do something about our contributions to the filth in the air, but we have to get around those who make huge profits by polluting the air.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 07:39 AM

Another interesting perspective:
http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20091129/LETTER/911289999/1078&ParentProfile=1055

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: kendall
Date: 30 Nov 09 - 06:03 AM

Ok, forget Polar Bears and glaciers. I have never seen either of these things so cant know first hand if they are being harmed by global warming or not.
What I do know is;
When I was a boy we had temperatures as low as 50 below zero where I lived. Snow up to the telephone wires causing us to be snow bound for two weeks.
The coldest I've seen it here lately is around 0 to a few degerees below, and it is now the last day of November and we have NO snow at all.
Furthermore, it is within the last 10 years or so that I have seen, with my own eyes, southern wildlife. Cardinals and Possums, unheard of just a few years ago.
Look at any smoke stack, exhaust from a big truck or bus and realize that we are pumping filth into the air by the billions of tons each year. Look at the history of volcanos. In the past they have caused nuclear winters because their emmissions have blocked out the sun's heat.
Climate change is a natural thing, but we are speeding it up with our "contributions" that are bringing it about.
How anyone with eyes that are connected to a brain can fail to see this is a mystery to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:36 PM

There is no secret that just like inventors, scientists compete with each other, and some agressively so. There is also no secret that their is a political heirachy in science. Those who operate on the outside, and those with minority theories or positions are treated with contempt from inside, also no great revalation there.

Additionally, it is known that vested commercial interests will agressively attempt to discredit anything or anyone that impacts them or their ventures and investments negatively.

Data analysis techniques is quite complex in science....as is the terminology scientists use. ...as with many other speciality professions. Does it not seem reasonable to question those who stole the e-mails....as to who they represent...Is it illogical to suspect it may be vested interests?

If you were a vested interest, in possession with vast #s of private emails....is it illogical to question whether some e-mails selected to be made public were selective, possibly taken out of context or chosen to reflect something not intended....given the differences in language used by the science community.

Is it wise to jump the gun...or to wait for a response? I suspect the scientists who are targeted must read the entire material themselves before recalling the context of a particular e-mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Climate change: Not??
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Nov 09 - 02:10 PM

From:
Huffington Post    ( Katherine Goldstein/Craig Kanalley)



"One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails:

    More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Despite the lack of evidence of some sort of conspiracy in the scientific community, this criminal activity has created fodder for right-wing groups and websites to promote their own agenda that global warming is not real. This comes at a time when international attention is more and more focused on the climate crisis in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/23/global-warming-emails-hac_