Global Warming Theorists Computers Hacked

[mvdaog]

Oh okay. Well my assumption on no cost is based on my own theories of what cost means, nothing to do with the UN.

There is a cost to each individual of taxation, what that is spent on is another debate. Its not necessarily an added cost or expenditure to each individual, it's just a shift of spending from one area to another.

 

I'll tell you my opinion if you tell me yours

[Ricinus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM

 

 

Regards Mike

 

I do so love that skit...

[Ricinus]

Yup, one of my favorites along with the dead parrot skit.

 

Regards Mike

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Yup, one of my favorites along with the dead parrot skit.

 

Regards Mike

 

my second fave is the bridge crossing in the holy grail movie

[adc]

If you want to get sick to your pants, this is the opening video at the Copenhagen Climate conference........Very scientific and objective, don't you think??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

[Weedy1]

If you want to get sick to your pants, this is the opening video at the Copenhagen Climate conference........Very scientific and objective, don't you think??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

 

This is a familiar face. I wonder if Dad had any part in the video. It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

If you want to get sick to your pants, this is the opening video at the Copenhagen Climate conference........Very scientific and objective, don't you think??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

 

Well...this is how they mask the facts.... I thought this was a trailer for "Day After Tomorrow".

 

Blaming tornados on global warming based upon what facts? Was their more or less tornadoes 12 years ago versus today when it is cooler? Earthquake chasing the girl...global warming?

 

Africa has always been subject to rainfall issues. Deforestation is the main culprit of water issues in Africa. Gezz...they has the Sahara Desert after all. Over time some years the rainfall is normal, some high, some low just like everywhere else.

 

Jeepers.

 

 

This is one topic some day I will bring forward and happily say I told you so as so many people are believing in the emotional rhetoric.

 

 

[TerryH]

If you want to get sick to your pants, this is the opening video at the Copenhagen Climate conference........Very scientific and objective, don't you think??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

I barfed all over my keyboard -- thanks Allan. When I see communications like this, my BS detectors go off and I immediately become sceptical (actually, I already was sceptical). Debate with facts and reasoned arguments or go home.

 

BTW, for any 100 mile diet locavors out there, read the following article in today's National Post.

 

The 100 mile delusion

 

 

 

[adc]

I barfed all over my keyboard -- thanks Allan. When I see communications like this, my BS detectors go off and I immediately become sceptical (actually, I already was sceptical). Debate with facts and reasoned arguments or go home.

 

BTW, for any 100 mile diet locavors out there, read the following article in today's National Post.

 

The 100 mile delusion

 

At least there could be some sanity starting to take hold as a result of all the discussion..........Thank goodness for the internet and leaked emails.......The eat local thing sounds good and is easy to embrace......But as someone who has spent a career in, or close to, agriculture, the inefficincies in our global food system are primarily the result of politics and trade........Why else would Canada continue to protect a select few farmers to produce sugar beets when we could import sugar from countless countries that could produce it at 1/5 the cost?..........Just because it's produced locally doesn't mean it's cheap or cheap to produce or that it has a low carbon footprint.........

[canadensis]

If you want to get sick to your pants, this is the opening video at the Copenhagen Climate conference........Very scientific and objective, don't you think??

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OIPYUlHv38

 

This video shows how collectively desperate the Global Warming advocates are. Good way to start an unbiased scientific conference...??

 

I wonder what the warlord leaders of some of the Rogue African countries will do with all the transfer payments they recieve, all under the guise of "fighting climate change" ??

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Fox's rivals begin matching its 'Climate-gate' coverage

December 9, 2:34

 

CNN snags exclusive interview with Al Gore Wednesday on 'Climate-gate' controversy.

AP Photo/Rick ScuteriJust as it did over the summer with its critical investigation of the activist group ACORN, Fox News has been banging the drum loudly for more than two weeks on the “Climate-gate” story, airing extensive coverage across virtually all of its programming on a topic its rivals barely seemed to notice.

 

Until now.

 

To the likely chagrin of climate change activists, other news organizations have joined Fox in covering the story, most notably its chief rival, CNN, which spent substantial air time both Monday and Tuesday exploring the controversy, even using an on-screen banner that asked this question about the global warming theory: “Trick or Truth?”

 

And Wednesday, the Nobel-winning godfather of the climate change movement, former Vice President Al Gore, is scheduled to sit down for an exclusive interview on CNN’s “American Morning” where this controversy will be front and center.

 

“Climate-gate” refers to the recent disclosure of e-mails between leading global warming researchers that seemed to show they had been manipulating data to support their theory that discharge of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is raising planetary temperatures and thus putting human civilization at risk.

 

Those researchers and other supporters of the theory insist the e-mails amount to harmless scientific banter, not an attempt to prop up bogus science. But the e-mails have triggered investigations at universities in both England and the United States, along with a fusillade of we-told-you-so’s from critics who have long challenged a theory that fashionable opinion worldwide has come to regard as absolute truth.

 

Fox and the British press have been all over the story since news of the e-mails broke last month, but “Climate-gate” was either ignored, attacked or dismissed by most of the rest of media until this week, when the U.N. summit on global warming kicked off in Denmark.

 

Why this burst of newfound interest? Well, the summit does provide a news hook that makes the “Climate-gate” story timely. And necessary, too, because reporting on the summit without acknowledging the 800-pound gorilla lurking around the conference hall in Copenhagen would make them look ridiculous.

 

However, Fox’s relentless pounding on this story also put the news organizations that had been disregarding the story in an increasingly untenable position. After all, how much longer could they keep ignoring a topic people had started chattering about around the water cooler?

 

Over the past decade, as global warming mushroomed from a scientific theory into a mass political movement, most of the major media voices in this country displayed a shocking lack of skepticism regarding the whole notion that carbon dioxide -- a common by-product of human activity that has always surrounded us -- is a threat to our survival that justifies drastic change.

 

Journalists are supposed to be skeptical. Their cynicism antennae ought to become fully erect when anyone (even a prominent scientist) predicts doom or purports to forecast the future. But when it came to the global warming theory, most of them drank the Kool-Aid without seriously questioning what was in it.

 

Like much of the political class (both left and right) and most of polite society, journalists tended to treat those who challenged the theory as crackpots akin to people who believe the Earth is flat or deny that the Holocaust happened.

 

(Indeed, advocates of the global warming theory frequently use the latter comparison, branding skeptics as “deniers,” as if there was no difference between people who challenge a speculative theory about what might happen in the future and those who deny an actual historical event. Note to cable anchors: When these guys throw out this offensive term on your air, you ought to correct them.)

 

While “Climate-gate” is prompting more media focus on the soundness of the science behind the global warming theory, a tone of disdain still permeates much of the new coverage. CNN’s reporting this week is an example: At times, its coverage has been more skeptical of global warming skeptics than of the underlying theory that has now been called into question by the e-mails. (Kudos, though, to Campbell Brown, whose interviews on this topic have been both even-handed and probing.)

 

Fox’s critics and advocates of the global warming theory no doubt see its coverage of “Climate-gate” as yet another example of the network blatantly pushing a right-wing agenda. But its motivation is beside the point. Fox – just as it did with ACORN – seems to be prompting its media brethren take a deeper look at this entire issue, this time with a more skeptical eye. That very well may be a right-wing agenda, but it also happens to be a good-journalism agenda.

 

And let us remember that in its pursuit of ACORN, Fox turned out to be right.

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-7916-Cable-News-...tegate-coverage

 

 

[snuffy]

This is an impressive 11 pages of parochial bollocks you've managed to assemble here Sundance. Aren't you the same guy who refused to get the H1N1 shot because he didn't trust the science and then ended up bed-ridden for 2 weeks. What is it about science that you despise so much?

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what would motivate the scientific community to perpetuate what you refer to as a "hoax"? And don't say money again, cause there isn't any in science - none of the PhDs I know (and I know a lot of them) make as much as the average secretary downtown. Contrast that with the billions in your industry, which, faced with the venal threat of having to last a little longer, is pumping out misinformation on a biblical scale, all of which you swallow uncritically, because you have to.

[TerryH]

This video says it all as far as I'm concerned. It runs about 35 minutes, but is well worth watching -- easy for me to say, I'm not at work . Terry

 

Lord Monkton on Climategate

 

[Guest Sundancefisher]

This is an impressive 11 pages of parochial bollocks you've managed to assemble here Sundance. Aren't you the same guy who refused to get the H1N1 shot because he didn't trust the science and then ended up bed-ridden for 2 weeks. What is it about science that you despise so much?

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to what would motivate the scientific community to perpetuate what you refer to as a "hoax"? And don't say money again, cause there isn't any in science - none of the PhDs I know (and I know a lot of them) make as much as the average secretary downtown. Contrast that with the billions in your industry, which, faced with the venal threat of having to last a little longer, is pumping out misinformation on a biblical scale, all of which you swallow uncritically, because you have to.

 

Nice personal attack.

 

As for the H1N1 I had decided to get the shot after that one post from the guy working at the hospital had valid opinions.

 

I have gotten the regular flu shot before and with my lowered immune system from the H1N1 I got it again this year. I actually was heading out to get the shot the next day when it was cancelled. Oh well...I survived. I am glad you care so much to remember.

 

Please be careful to understand someone's opinion before snapping.

 

If you don't think the $20 million buck a year that CRU gets for funding peanuts...well good on you for being rich. Please tell me how an oil company loses via pro global warming having power? That is not even an issue if you think about it because there is no net loss to energy companies.

 

There is a lot of power in science these days versus just plain science. Sigh...I don't like repeating stuff but some people don't hear it. If you sneakily manipulate data, hide data, delete data, refuse to share data, threaten others for having a differing opinion, threaten journals to not publish...this is not science. This is ideological politics. When this comes into play in science you make poor decisions and biased decisions on biased data. If peer review consists of only those people having the same political and ideological leanings...you will get bias. No question!

 

True science encourages controversy, encourages free thinking, challenges people to argue the opposite, challenges science for repeatability.

 

Take a step back and look at the big picture objectively. I believe it is possible that man could influence climate...but...and a BIG BUT...you have to demonstrate it in fact rather than in assumptions. Climate gate proved one thing...scientists are not Gods, they are not supermen, they are not above reproach...but rather normal everyday people wanting to make as much money as they can to support their families, buy cars, houses, vacations etc. To think otherwise puts them on a pedestal that comes with blinders to what they are saying.

 

I know I am the most vocal on this since I once did research and I have a reasonable expectations of ethics for scientists. I test people I know to see if they believe in the science or the ideology. Most pro global warming people will quickly jump to "you believe in killing the planet"..."your beliefs are going to kill your kids". Straight emotional responses are a key sign of a lack of thought on the subject IMHO. Anyways...feel free to keep targetting my opinion. While others clearly believe the same thing...many can't handle the emotional attacks of the pro global warmers in such a discussion.

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[adc]

This video says it all as far as I'm concerned. It runs about 35 minutes, but is well worth watching -- easy for me to say, I'm not at work . Terry

 

Lord Monkton on Climategate

 

 

Thanks for posting.............35 minutes well spent..................No work and Summitt is frozen.......

[mvdaog]

To be fair, though, all that doom and gloom footage of ground splitting and tornadoes was a little girl's dream after seeing (on the news) stories about global warming... I don't think that the people who made it were suggesting that that is the future reality, only suggesting that there are people scared about the future who want the leaders at this summit to do something about this issue (especailly kids by the look of the video).

 

BTW, its not a scientific conference, it's a political summit to try and come to some agreement on future plans between various governments...

[Guest Sundancefisher]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2322656

 

This has been touted for a while as a galvanizing call to arms by the WWF.

 

Climate change not to blame for polar bear cannibalism

 

An adult polar bear with the remains of a cub. Scientists argue that climate change may be causing a spike in the rate of cannibalism among bears. Iain D. Williams/Reuters An adult polar bear with the remains of a cub. Scientists argue that climate change may be causing a spike in the rate of cannibalism among bears.

 

'Act of nature'

 

Alison Brownlee, National Post Published: Wednesday, December 09, 2009

 

 

The gory photos of male polar bears devouring cubs, dragging shredded carcasses around and creating a bloody mess on the white snow of Canada's North have caused a stir on the Internet and in reports that link the activity to climate change.

 

But cannibalism among the species is a natural occurrence, says one expert, disputing what is just the latest story to put the polar bear in the debate over man-made global warming.

 

"Both Inuit and scientific knowledge show that cannibalism in polar bears happens, and it probably always has," said Steve Pinksen, director of policy and legislation for Nunavut's Department of Environment.

 

The concern over cannibalism comes after a tourist group witnessed adult male bears attacking cubs for food. There have been at least eight reports of similar sights from Churchill, Man. The photos accompanying stories on the issue show bright-red remains strewn across blankets of snow.

 

Mr. Pinksen, however, called the incidents an "act of nature," and said the public reaction has been taken out of proportion.

 

"Maybe if you're sitting in an armchair in the city somewhere these pictures would be a shock, but people up here see these things all the time," he said, adding residents that are out hunting animals for food, clothing and income have seen evidence of these attacks in the past.

 

"A bear eating a bear is not a pretty picture, but nature is not really a pretty thing all the time," Mr. Pinksen said.

 

However, Dr. Ian Stirling, research scientist emeritus with the Canadian Wildlife Service, said the number of cannibalism incidents among polar bears is a result of warmer global temperatures. He said all species of bears experience cannibalism, but rates among polar bears have increased due to environmental changes.

 

"When we get a later-than-expected freeze up, that's when the bears get hungry," he said, adding the bears would usually be hunting seals and building up fat stores by now. Without a source of fat, the adult males target the vulnerable cubs, which are about 50% fat at six months old.

 

"If there was ice, the mothers would try to keep the cubs away from the males, for sure, but hundreds are waiting in the same general area for ice to form," Dr. Stirling said.

 

With the bears landlocked, Dr. Stirling said the number of infanticides has increased dramatically from the previous one every two or three years.

 

"This is a situation aggravated and made worse by the steady warming of the climate and loss of sea ice. If it continues, in 50 years there won't be many cubs left in Canada and the Hudson's Bay region," he said. "There's not really anything we can do to protect the cubs in nature. The only thing to do is to curb the affects of global warming."

 

Polar bears have often been part of the climate change debate, whether in iconic photos of bears on ice floes used to illustrate stories about the reduction of Arctic ice, or in the debate about listing them as an endangered species. Some groups have sought that protected status for the bears, arguing they are in danger because of climate change, but local organizations say the bear numbers are steady - and that the "endangered" status would only hinder traditional hunts.

 

Mr. Pinksen, meanwhile, said more attacks on cubs are likely witnessed in Churchill because the polar bear population is dense due to ice not forming on Hudson's Bay, leaving more chance of tourists seeing bear cannibalism. But that doesn't necessarily mean more attacks are happening, According to a media release by Polar Bears International, the Churchill bears usually wait for Hudson's Bay to freeze, then walk the ice to hunt seals. The lack of ice so far this season has left bears with little recourse for food sources, resulting in cannibalism, said the release. It links the late freeze to global warming.

 

Mr. Pinksen said there is no evidence to connect the cannibalism to climate change.

 

"It's nice to see people paying attention to climate change, but we're hoping people can keep a cooler head regarding arctic resource management," he said.

 

National Post

[adc]

To be fair, though, all that doom and gloom footage of ground splitting and tornadoes was a little girl's dream after seeing (on the news) stories about global warming... I don't think that the people who made it were suggesting that that is the future reality, only suggesting that there are people scared about the future who want the leaders at this summit to do something about this issue (especailly kids by the look of the video).

 

BTW, its not a scientific conference, it's a political summit to try and come to some agreement on future plans between various governments...

 

And why do you think they're scared??.........Because of Al Gore and his Convenient Lie and all the hollywood hacks who would rather senasationalize projections than report the facts have made them that way......And their parents have stood by and watched and have not questioned the bullshit...........You should read up on how to handle sheep..........It's appropriate in this context............Jeeeeez.......

[Harps]

 

University of Lethbridge represents...

and I agree (amazingly with the majority of experts).

If the experts say a toy is bad, I won't argue it being pulled off a shelf. Same with bad food and faulty cars.

If the experts beleive in human affected climate change, why shouldn't I?

 

You believe that ozone depleting CFC and acid rain causing sulfates were bad... why not human added greenhouse gas emissions, above what would be natural?

 

And it's global climate change, not warmer weather in Calgary.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

 

University of Lethbridge represents...

and I agree (amazingly with the majority of experts).

If the experts say a toy is bad, I won't argue it being pulled off a shelf. Same with bad food and faulty cars.

If the experts beleive in human affected climate change, why shouldn't I?

 

You believe that ozone depleting CFC and acid rain causing sulfates were bad... why not human added greenhouse gas emissions, above what would be natural?

 

And it's global climate change, not warmer weather in Calgary.

 

So why can they not explain the last 11 year cooling trend? Understanding our CO2 output is growing almost exponentially?

 

As for acid rain...it is a regional effect. It is easily measured and because it is regional it can be traced. It is a chemical that settles out on the ground, dissolved in rain and the chemistry is very clearly studied.

 

CO2 on the other hand is not seen having any regional effect. It is not a total global effect. We still have cold spells...we still have record setting cold days. Just this week...places in Western Canada were setting COLD records. We have also been cooler for the past 11 years so any effect is not clearly understood. CO2 can not be traced as it is a naturally occurring, common gas that is required by plants to survive. This chemical relationship is well know through plant metabolism studies.

 

Bad toys, car recalls etc. are all simple relationships. Toy has lead...leads relationship in the body is direct and obvious. Car crashes and mechanical review shows a brake line failed. Review of brake lines show micro-fractures...easy cause and effect relationship.

 

There is no proven cause and effect relationship between CO2 and man induced global warming. If there was an effect we would have steadily warmed over the past 11 years. I need that explained but this is not a simple problem Heat is derived from the Sun. There is also some heat generated by the Earth itself. There are ocean currents, mountains, evaporation, rain, wind, jet stream, urbanization effects (ie. buildings and asphalt), forests and deserts...all of which are so highly variable both regionally and locally but also daily. To model that and say it is anywheres near accurate to predict climate 2 days away let alone 5, 10, 50 or 100 years from now is stretching expectations. When models need to be re-run time and time again until one scenario matches the past sound great. But then over and over again these get thrown out cause then they can not predict the present. Then they re-run the models time and time again until the past including the present is match. Then repeat, then repeat. They have never made a model stick yet. I also question if the only model they are taking also is required to show warming in the future. Ideology and politics...surely come into play.

 

If you look at all the "proof" they are all assumption studies. Their only real attempt at proof is looking at the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only has math not been their best subject...but their main contentions have been proven wrong from the hockey stick graph, to warmest year for both the IPCC and NASA.

[mvdaog]

And why do you think they're scared??.........Because of Al Gore and his Convenient Lie and all the hollywood hacks who would rather senasationalize projections than report the facts have made them that way......And their parents have stood by and watched and have not questioned the bullshit...........You should read up on how to handle sheep..........It's appropriate in this context............Jeeeeez.......

 

I don't know why they are scared, I wasn't addressing that. I was just pointing out that the ad wasn't a representation of what their projections are, it was a child's dream that had the unrealistic future in it.... you should read...

[canadensis]

BTW, its not a scientific conference, it's a political summit to try and come to some agreement on future plans between various governments...

 

It's a political summit where they are using the data supplied from the global warming scientists.

 

some of these organizations think they are Robin Hood.

[canadensis]

I don't know why they are scared, I wasn't addressing that. I was just pointing out that the ad wasn't a representation of what their projections are, it was a child's dream that had the unrealistic future in it.... you should read...

 

The same tactic the global warming advocates have been using all along; fear and gross exaggeration based on a percieved outcome that they are trying to match data to.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

The same tactic the global warming advocates have been using all along; fear and gross exaggeration based on a percieved outcome that they are trying to match data to.

 

Interesting the poll is showing about a 50/50 split. That compares to 70/30 probably nationally last year to 60/40 nationally today.

 

Perception is changing.