quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

LOL, Howie Carr of WRKO 680 Boston was playing some recordings of ALGORE today and how he was using the term, "STOLLEN e-mails!"
LOL, man, that's very weak!
How does one "steal" an e-mail?

the other one is laying it on evil "hackers". AFAIK they still havent determined the source, and an insider is more likely than a hacker. Any update on that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

This time of year, there'll probably be rumours that it was Santa soon...

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

This time of year, there'll probably be rumours that it was Santa soon...

Santa is an obvious candidate. He stands to lose much if the snows all melt. How will he glide his sleigh in for a landing? Yes, I think he is the culprit.

Vincent

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You may be right boi.... i missed that lesson.

But fuck! This is surely Santa's revenge if you are wrong...

Australia shipping alert over massive iceberg

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

You may be right boi.... i missed that lesson.

But fuck! This is surely Santa's revenge if you are wrong...

Australia shipping alert over massive iceberg

Vincent, if they can "fudge the figures" for God knows how many years do you think they're going to notice a huge iceberg?
"La la la (hands over ears) I can't hear you!


This is more disturbing though. Always "follow the money!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FX-jhDJR44&feature=fuhl

quote:

UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate

(biggovernment.com)


A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions”  during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climate Research Unit, has temporarily stood down pending an investigation into the scandal.

Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.

McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour. “It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted  but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

(Full article here).

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts.

Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head.

However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence.  It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Further disclosure:

Christopher C. Horner is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a think tank that's received more than $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil since 1998, among other corporate funders.

(Chris Horner - SourceWatch)

Let's ride that horse for a little bit, rule ...


Climategate: Follow the Money
DECEMBER 1, 2009, 10:40 A.M. ET
...Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Seems to me the billions and billions balanced against a couple of hundred thousand tells the real story about who "the money" is corrupting.

Admit it.  You and the others who are "believers" simply are taking another tack to attempt to cut off debate, real science, and any possibility of opposition to your beliefs.

Scientists should welcome additional research, and if it's bad, be able to point out in the original data, or in the assumptions why it's bad.  This has the effect of strengthening a hypothesis, not weakening it.

Only people who are really afraid that their beliefs will be exposed as inaccurate try to cut off research, and dissenting opinions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

It's amazing (no, not really) how quiet the "believers" have been in this thread, with only a very few "hit-n-run" posts.

Before this all came out, you almost couldn't post a doubting word about AGW (or the fallacy thereof) without having a "believers' swarm" descend upon your head.

However, I'm somewhat heartened by this, as well as the lack of arguments against the specific facts of fraud in evidence.  It tells me that perhaps some of them are actually thinking hard.

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty - Forbes.com

Dec 12, 2009

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message.

Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets. The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This is truly a classic example of the the "new" conservative platform.

Try to divert and suggest those with a profit motive are not really seeking profit but those who have little to gain are the true profiteers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Those with little to gain???

Al Gore is setting himself up to be one of the richest men on earth. George Soros and General Electric have financial interests... as well as ties to Barack Obama and the Democratic party.

The ones with "little to gain" are end consumers, families who use energy and who need the products that are made utilizing energy - from food and clothing, to shelter and transportation, and everything else under the sun.

Making the heroes of the Democratic party wealthy beyond belief will make everything that poor and middle class people need just to survive cost more.

It all reminds me of the way things work in Cuba and North Korea. Control of information, control of the wealth, control of industry, just name it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

This is truly a classic example of the the "new" conservative platform.

Try to divert and suggest those with a profit motive are not really seeking profit but those who have little to gain are the true profiteers.

quote:

Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don't add up




There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore. The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Full article at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093