ClimateGate Hoax

[Guest]

The lid is coming off the hoax.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php

[Guest]

Interesting developments...been scouring the Lame Stream Media for updates on this story...listen, here it comes.....ready....crickets....

Thanks for posting enlightening information on a topic where we all know the discussion is over...now delete it please. :thumbup:

[Guest]

The NY Times say they won't publish the e-mails because they think they were otained illegally. When did the Times start caring about legality?? It never bothers them to print military secrets or anything else that will harm America.

[Guest]

I wonder what the koolaid drinkers will say about this?

Yoda

[Guest]

It's a scam and it's always been a scam. Not that I condone hacking, but they got caught red handed. Follow the money...

[Guest]

Follow The Money, indeed. Sad that it comes to that so frequently.

"Global Warming" has already been falling out of disfavor to be replaced with the term "Climate Change".

The interesting part here is how to reconcile real data, faked data, hoax information and clearly observable conditions.

What nobody on the planet can argue with, because of everything from satellite pictures to shipping schedules, is that polar ice is going away. Glaciers are melting, more icebergs are calving, the Ross ice shelf is deteriorating. Those are facts. The question then becomes "why". Well, warmer temps are the first suspect. Then the next question is "why" and that's where the REAL arguments start.

My position? I have a hard time believing some of the alarmists because I worked in Boston when seas were supposed to be rising. Not only did I work in Boston, I worked ON A PIER - literally on the water - old-timers would know the place as Commonwealth Pier Exhibition Hall, the modern name is the World Trade Center in Boston. Some areas steps down into the ports and I didn't notice any steps "going away". (I did notice one unbelievable jellyfish bloom - whole harbor looked like a bowl of Rice Krispies for 2 days).

I don't believe all the apocalyptic rantings that have come out. I mean, I don't see a lot of news covering the huge algae/plankton bloom that happened around Antarctica (wish I remembered the details) that nobody expected and is now going to be digesting more CO2 in that area than had been previously estimated. To me, this is part of nature reacting. Lots of growth of organisms that eat stuff that now happens to be in abundance (CO2). Duh!

That being said, I don't think we should be dumping everything into the atmosphere that we're doing. I believe we have the technology to get off of fossil fuels and make things a LOT better for everyone. I think there's a lot of money to be made "doing the right thing". I mean, I don't know if we can make plastics out of something else, but we don't HAVE to burn oil in order to commute to work.

Now, I love to drive. But the commute can get monotonous, boring and aggravating as traffic gets worse. I would like it if there were options - but in this area, there aren't.

I also want to put my money where my mouth is. I'd like to be able to make my next car a Volt (plug-in hybrid) but I also know that converting to more electrically-based cars will cause a disruption down the road. How will we pay for our roads as people use less and less gas (and paying less gas taxes)? I find it frustrating that it took until the 21st century for car companie to discover what the railroads discovered in the 1930s and 40s - that the most efficient form of locomotion is an engine producing power for electricity to drive the wheels. An engine can be tuned for optimum efficiency if it doesn't have to worry about driving the wheels. Let the electric motors worry about that.

It ticks me off that people say nukes aren't a solution because we "have no plan to deal with the waste". Well, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. And you're also assuming that we don't act like France and reprocess spent rods or that technology won't come up with a solution in the next 50-100 years (remember, 100 years ago, we didn't have nuke plants at all - technology doesn't stand still).

And stop treating "Europe" like it's a dirty word. There ARE things we can learn from them. we can study their health plans (especially the ones that include private insurance) and make them better. Look at the French when it comes to getting around by train or getting electricity. Look at the Brits and how cars aren't the ONLY option for travelling a lot of places. It doesn't mean we HAVE to mimick their employment model (making it nearly impossible for a company to fire workers in France)

I mean, come on, they built a tunnel between France and England over a DECADE ago and we can't bypass traffic in New York with a tunnel between Long Island and Connecticut because of NIMBYs?????

The solutions ARE THERE. We just need the political will to DO IT.

[Guest]

Um... the last 10 years data shows we've been actually cooling off.

I think everyone agrees the climate changes. What the liberals like to tell us, it's our fault.

You could remove every human on the face of the earth. Guess what? The climate still changes. Always has always will.

It's a scam to separate people from their money.... and their freedoms. The emails clearly show the top guys have been holding back data, fudging numbers and basically conspiring to perpetuate the hoax.

What more do people need?

[Guest]

CCryosphere Today, put out by The University of Illinois in cooperation with NASA shows that total sea ice is unchanged over the last thirty years. No warming or cooling evident. Water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.

Methane is a much more significant greenhouse gas – 20 times more effective in trapping heat than is CO2. CO2 concentrations are 387 ppm as of September and Methane’s concentration is 79 ppm. With its greater effectiveness at trapping heat Methane's impact is 4 times that of CO2. Methane comes in large part from ruminant animals (animals with multiple stomachs, primarily cattle and sheep). If you wish to cut your greenhouse gas output, you will do more by buying one less Big Mac each week than you will by trading in your SUV for a Prius. We need to use less oil in order to both help our economy and reduce energy independence, but it has little to do with greenhouse gases.

[Guest]

Follow The Money, indeed. Sad that it comes to that so frequently.

"Global Warming" has already been falling out of disfavor to be replaced with the term "Climate Change".

The interesting part here is how to reconcile real data, faked data, hoax information and clearly observable conditions.

What nobody on the planet can argue with, because of everything from satellite pictures to shipping schedules, is that polar ice is going away. Glaciers are melting, more icebergs are calving, the Ross ice shelf is deteriorating. Those are facts. The question then becomes "why". Well, warmer temps are the first suspect. Then the next question is "why" and that's where the REAL arguments start.

My position? I have a hard time believing some of the alarmists because I worked in Boston when seas were supposed to be rising. Not only did I work in Boston, I worked ON A PIER - literally on the water - old-timers would know the place as Commonwealth Pier Exhibition Hall, the modern name is the World Trade Center in Boston. Some areas steps down into the ports and I didn't notice any steps "going away". (I did notice one unbelievable jellyfish bloom - whole harbor looked like a bowl of Rice Krispies for 2 days).

I don't believe all the apocalyptic rantings that have come out. I mean, I don't see a lot of news covering the huge algae/plankton bloom that happened around Antarctica (wish I remembered the details) that nobody expected and is now going to be digesting more CO2 in that area than had been previously estimated. To me, this is part of nature reacting. Lots of growth of organisms that eat stuff that now happens to be in abundance (CO2). Duh!

That being said, I don't think we should be dumping everything into the atmosphere that we're doing. I believe we have the technology to get off of fossil fuels and make things a LOT better for everyone. I think there's a lot of money to be made "doing the right thing". I mean, I don't know if we can make plastics out of something else, but we don't HAVE to burn oil in order to commute to work.

Now, I love to drive. But the commute can get monotonous, boring and aggravating as traffic gets worse. I would like it if there were options - but in this area, there aren't.

I also want to put my money where my mouth is. I'd like to be able to make my next car a Volt (plug-in hybrid) but I also know that converting to more electrically-based cars will cause a disruption down the road. How will we pay for our roads as people use less and less gas (and paying less gas taxes)? I find it frustrating that it took until the 21st century for car companie to discover what the railroads discovered in the 1930s and 40s - that the most efficient form of locomotion is an engine producing power for electricity to drive the wheels. An engine can be tuned for optimum efficiency if it doesn't have to worry about driving the wheels. Let the electric motors worry about that.

It ticks me off that people say nukes aren't a solution because we "have no plan to deal with the waste". Well, we do. It's called Yucca Mountain. And you're also assuming that we don't act like France and reprocess spent rods or that technology won't come up with a solution in the next 50-100 years (remember, 100 years ago, we didn't have nuke plants at all - technology doesn't stand still).

And stop treating "Europe" like it's a dirty word. There ARE things we can learn from them. we can study their health plans (especially the ones that include private insurance) and make them better. Look at the French when it comes to getting around by train or getting electricity. Look at the Brits and how cars aren't the ONLY option for travelling a lot of places. It doesn't mean we HAVE to mimick their employment model (making it nearly impossible for a company to fire workers in France)

I mean, come on, they built a tunnel between France and England over a DECADE ago and we can't bypass traffic in New York with a tunnel between Long Island and Connecticut because of NIMBYs?????

The solutions ARE THERE. We just need the political will to DO IT.

Please do some more research on the polar ice story.
When you do you will find that overall the ice in the world is not dimishing at all. You cannot take a change in one area and pretend it represents the entire earth.

Check the South Pole and also remember the Polar bear population is increasing faster than ever. That's another Liberal lie gone bad.

[Guest]

Please do some more research on the polar ice story.
When you do you will find that overall the ice in the world is not dimishing at all. You cannot take a change in one area and pretend it represents the entire earth.

Check the South Pole and also remember the Polar bear population is increasing faster than ever. That's another Liberal lie gone bad.

Care to give a cite on the ice? I'm going by what I've been reading all year - including marine shipping companies making plans for new routes during months when polar routes are normally iced-in. This year I've found a couple of articles in the financial sections - got pointed to them from some 'watches' I keep on the transportation sector for financial interests.

Now, I know about all the hoopla concerning the polar bears, but I also just read that they're moving south. In other words, if their habitat is ice that's going away, they're simply adapting - not going extinct.

Like I said, I don't buy the apocalyptic stories. Nobody in that camp seems to take into consideration what a breadbasket Canada and Siberia would become with a longer growing season - just as an example.

[Guest]

It's all moot anyway.

Guess what... even if the climate is changing which I'm sure it has been for millions of years, there's not a damn thing we can do about it one way or the other.

We didn't create the earth nor do we control it's climate no more than we can control the weather. There's larger and greater forces at work than wee little humans.

Anyone who tells you different, follow the money. Trust me, there are tens of billions to be made. We'll pay it and others will get it.

[Guest]

Care to give a cite on the ice? I'm going by what I've been reading all year - including marine shipping companies making plans for new routes during months when polar routes are normally iced-in. This year I've found a couple of articles in the financial sections - got pointed to them from some 'watches' I keep on the transportation sector for financial interests.

Now, I know about all the hoopla concerning the polar bears, but I also just read that they're moving south. In other words, if their habitat is ice that's going away, they're simply adapting - not going extinct.

Like I said, I don't buy the apocalyptic stories. Nobody in that camp seems to take into consideration what a breadbasket Canada and Siberia would become with a longer growing season - just as an example.

For information on sea ice, see Cryosphere Today, http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ The greatest extent of arctic polar ice recorded was 1n 1979 at 15M sq kilometers. Last year's peak was 13.5M sq kilometers.

The total extent of sea ice has not changed in the last thirty years. Yes, icebergs are caving from Greenland and the Ross ice shelf. They have for centuries. It was an iceberg that originated in Greenland that sunk the Titanic.

[Guest]

I went to the site you provided and I see a quite CLEAR downward trend in the graphs they're providing. Looking at the 107 year chart at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg shows that trend.

Summer arctic ice which hovered aroun 11M sq km is now down around 7 (was a 8, plunged to 6 but rebounded slightly in the last 2 years).

Spring ice went from 15M to about 12.5M, overall ice went from 13.5M to about 10.3M.

Even if I look at the last 30 years on that chart, it CLEARLY show a downward trend.

[Guest]

presented on the site. Scroll to the bottom of the page and you will see that total global sea ice remains unchanged. No evidence of either global warming or cooling.

Here is another presentation of polar ice coverage done as a joint project between NASA and Japanese Aerospace. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

[Guest]

I went to the site you provided and I see a quite CLEAR downward trend in the graphs they're providing. Looking at the 107 year chart at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg shows that trend.

Summer arctic ice which hovered aroun 11M sq km is now down around 7 (was a 8, plunged to 6 but rebounded slightly in the last 2 years).

Spring ice went from 15M to about 12.5M, overall ice went from 13.5M to about 10.3M.

Even if I look at the last 30 years on that chart, it CLEARLY show a downward trend.

What about Antartic ice?

Yoda

[Guest]

An interesting aspect of this "unreported story" ....

"Take back Al Gore's Oscar, 2 Academy members demand in light of Climategate"
Two quotes from this article...

"In 2007, Hollywood's Academy sanctified Gore's cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance and helped elevate the Tennesseean's profile to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite losing the election battle of 2000 to a Texan and living in a large house with lots of energy-driven appliances."

"The television news-watching world in America has not learned much about the so-called Climategate scandal because it has not really been mentioned on the air except for a notorious cable news channel named for a three-lettered, wily, wild animal that often seems to revel in debunking liberal shibboleths.
Network news programs have been far more concerned with the obviously more important White House party-crasher story involving a couple of formally-dressed phonies."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

[Guest]

My understanding is that climategate hasn't been mentioned once on NBC, CBS or ABC's morning shows or evening newscast. If true, unbelievable!!!!

[Guest]

My understanding is that climategate hasn't been mentioned once on NBC, CBS or ABC's morning shows or evening newscast. If true, unbelievable!!!!

It really is believable

Yoda

[Guest]

I just read, on another site, that NBC evening news finally mentioned climatgate. Of course they disparaged it. Their main concern was that it might cause further delays, in action being taken. I notice now that Obama is going to Copenhagen at the end of the conference, instead of at the start, like he originally planned. That concerns me. I hope he doesn't promise anything.

[Guest]

I usually stay as far away from the political forum as I possibly can, but this time I can't.

I have a very dear friend. (37 years). He has a PhD in Meteorology and is one of the nations best know broadcast forecasters. He prepares daily forecasts for hundreds of cities, states, airlines, large companies and broadcast stations. He has over 100 meteorologist who work under him. He is also a nationally recognized "forensic" meteorologist and has testified at many of the highest profile trials where weather was a factor (Exxon Valdez, JonBenet Ramsey and others) He has been main speaker at many of the world's largest meteorological enclaves. He was the first foreign meteorologist ever allowed to see and work inside the Soviet Union HydroMet Center. (National Weather Bureau).

His doctoral thesis was on global weather trends and weather cycles within weather cycles.

He is a Democrat and an avowed liberal.

He says Global Warming is BUNK!!!!!!

[Guest]

I do not believe anyone should take global warming or ice quantities opinions from the scientists who do not have reliable data.

[Guest]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You never hear in the media anything from the scientists like TH's friend and the world famous meteorologist from MIT who was mentioned recently on another thread. Those that don't agree with the popular (Gore) notion get no press time. And the sheep march on.

[Guest]

If there is a chance of global warming it would have to be caused from all the hot air from the WH. I think they still believe in Santa Claus.

[Guest]

BUT cap and trade is still hot for our congress and we will be hearing from our President in Copenhagen on a world cap and trade. You gotta wonder !

[Guest]

Gore(y) and his cool-ade drinkers should thank Tiger Woods for creating more heat in the World than any of their lame claims.

[Guest]

And, once again, Jon Stewart and The Daily Show go where news agencies fear.

They were all over this a couple of nights ago.

[See, guys, they don't 'just' attack conservatives]

It is REALLY sad that a comedy news show break more "news" than cable news channels.

[Guest]

Another footnote on this climate thing....and remember this as our President is in Copanhagen pushing for cap and trade world wide because of the warming earth (which will also stop manufacturing growth and move more to China, but more on that later),,,,,,

This news is from 1975.....34 years ago...a reasonably short time....

"Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."[/B][/B]

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