CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists' Funding Hypocrisy

[Big Al]

An older but related article: Scientists threatened for 'climate denial' - Telegraph

 

[Guy-jin]

There are enough professionals on the subject that disagree with the science being used to create this globally binding treaty that it should be given serious consideration: http://www.petitionproject.org

That isn't really true. The vast majority of climatologists (read: nearly every credible climatologist on earth) agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Heh... http://www.petitionproject.org
For a bunch of PHDs and scientists, that's certainly one hell of a crappy built website. Hell, even our corrupt insurance companies can make something look more believable. People actually think their grassroots sites are true. This looks like Dreamweaver 3.0 after a beginner's class.

I'm just saying, of course... :biggrin:

 

[B_Mister Buildington]

That isn't really true. The vast majority of climatologists (read: nearly every credible climatologist on earth) agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

source? I'm not denying it, I would just like to see evidence. I want to be able to make an informed decision for myself.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

I know a lot of people roll their eyes when somebody suggests using wikipedia as a starting point, but, anyhow, wiki's "Global Warming Controversy" includes a Scientific Consensus section which begins:

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

 

[Guy-jin]

source? I'm not denying it, I would just like to see evidence. I want to be able to make an informed decision for myself.

As opposed to giving you a huge list of specific references, you might be better served starting here:

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

And yes, while it's a terrible primary source, the Wikipedia entry on this particular topic has a vast array of references for you to investigate:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good luck to you. I've done a lot of research on the topic myself in my free time and drawn my conclusion that humans are affecting the global climate in addition to generally affecting the environment in ways that are not in mankind's actual interest and therefore decided taking action to fix that is necessary.

 

[Big Al]

Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists | Ron Paul .com

Before you post a reply to this, please put the labels "grassroots", "conservative" and "liberal" aside for just a moment. Whatever you think of him, this is a representative who for years has been trying to get a complete audit for the Federal Reserve, and he got it! He's got the respect of 313 of his fellow senators to back him up on him too. Do you think that he'd be presenting that petition before the US House of Representatives if it were bogus.

There's nothing truer and more illuminating than facts that you have confirmed with your own eyes- like what's in those emails, treaties, and reports from governing bodies themselves that I posted here. I'm getting the impression that not all of you participating in this discussion have read them for yourselves :frown1:

 

[justasimpleguy]

Omg socialism! They're coming to destroy our God and take our guns!
By the way, I read the emails. They don't sound incriminating to me and neither does being a socialist, or (God forbid) a communist. I'm assuming you didn't watch the video I posted. Here's another.
Rachel Pike: The science behind a climate headline | Video on TED.com
You can trust the vast majority of scientists or the conspiracy theorists. There are scientists. But sadly they're the same kind of scientists who work for cigarette companies and are paid to cast doubt on the fact that smoking causes cancer. Corporate shills.

 

[Big Al]

More scientists disagree: THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

 

[B_VinylBoy]

So what is the goal now... post every conspiracy theory site that has a big list of people on the net as proof to the nonexistence of climate change and global warming? Funny how we all agree not to believe everything we see on the net, however when it comes to a belief you have wholeheartedly even the most flimsy of thrown together site with misleading, incomplete and distorted information becomes doctrine.

We get it Big Al... you don't believe in it. So, what does this mean to YOU in pertains to the environment? Because quite frankly, you can sit here and list all of the websites you want and it still won't make me change my attitudes or activity.

 

[vince]

I've posted information that, from it's appearance, is pretty damning evidence. All I'm asking is that you please read as many of those emails as you can and the treaty too so that you can make a decision for yourself.

You can make the choice that some people are making on not reading the files and the other details, but if you don't read the actual data you'll never know the truth.

There are enough professionals on the subject that disagree with the science being used to create this globally binding treaty that it should be given serious consideration: Global Warming Petition Project

Well, appearances can be deceiving.

I bolded the bits in your post that you should pay attention to. I suggest that before you expound on an opinion based on what you find on the internet, you check your sources. You ask that other people read the data and look at it honestly. Sorry man but you need to do the same.

I've seen that petition before. It's known as the Oregon Petition and it's been around since the late 1990's. It has been throughly de-bunked many times. Here is a link to one such analysis.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

Just because some congressmen have been sucked in by it (even Ron Paul from you wrote), doesn't mean it's true.

Please read the whole article before you make up your mind.

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

Two items have already been linked, but since I'm near the top of the page, allow me to link them again.

In this interview on Fox News, Ed Begley, Jr. addresses the "lists of scientists" opposing global warming controversy. These are random "scientists" (a generic term) who are not climatoligists and who do not study global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIl2gdDtbCg


And Guy-jin, with the proviso that wikipedia is a terrible primary source, still links
there as a good starting point:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--------------------

Note:

The next United Nations Climate Change Conference will take place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18, 2009.

Which is one week from Monday.



It seems to me that the entire Global Warming debate is having the same violent pushback, especially among religious conservatives, as Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"

 

[SilverTrain]

It seems to me that the entire Global Warming debate is having the same violent pushback, especially among religious conservatives, as Darwin's 1859 "On the Origin of Species"

Ditto, Copernicus' heliocentrism

or

Aristotle's repudiation of flat earth theory.

Still, dissenters remain.

The Flat Earth Society

 

[Big Al]

Here are my thoughts on the subject- There is an unprecedented amount of money and power vested in this particular interest. Money and power have corrupted people since the beginning of history. I do believe that we affect the planet in some form. I've been to enough metropolitan cities to see the very tangible effects that people have on their environments. But I don't believe that the world's going to end right now if the heads of state don't sign a treaty, nor do I believe that certain organizations should forcibly commit the entire planet to one until all of the facts are in and these incriminating emails investigated in full. There should also be some degree of consensus of everyone involved as well (that includes you and me).

I'm not claiming to know everything there is about climate science- what I am saying is that before you make a statement based on faith in this matter that you research what's behind it it as best you can. You may be wrong about some of the things you find, but at least you'll have made a concerted effort to try to find out the facts for yourself. The internet is a huge place and you're going to find plenty of data on both sides of the issue. Eventually, if you dig deep enough some of the pieces come together in the right way.

I truly wish I were wrong about all of the things that I'm posting here. It would be great if the people drafting up this treaty had the best intentions for us. I've read those emails and the messages from the heads of state themselves on their intentions though, and in my opinion, it doesn't appear that way

 

[SilverTrain]

Here are my thoughts on the subject- There is an unprecedented amount of money and power vested in this particular interest. Money and power have corrupted people since the beginning of history. I do believe that we affect the planet in some form, but I don't believe that the world's going to end right now if the heads of state don't sign a treaty, nor do I believe that certain organizations should forcibly commit the entire planet to one until all of the facts are in and these incriminating emails investigated in full. There should be some degree of consensus of everyone involved as well (including you and me).

I'm not claiming to know everything there is about climate science- what I am saying is that, before you make a statement based on faith in this matter that you research it as best you can. You may be wrong about some of the things you find, but at least you'll have made a concerted effort to try to find out the facts for yourself. Eventually, if you dig deep enough some of the pieces come together in the right way.

I truly wish I were wrong about all of the things that I'm posting here. It would be great if the heads of the world had the best intentions for us. I've read those emails and the messages from the heads of state themselves on their intentions though, and in my opinion, it doesn't appear that way

The best part of this is that you brought the same level of skepticism and active concern to the decision to make fossil fuels the primary focus of energy policy for the past century.

You did, right?

 

[Big Al]

The best part of this is that you brought the same level of skepticism and active concern to the decision to make fossil fuels the primary focus of energy policy for the past century.

You did, right?

I'm not in favor of "big oil" either. I'm in favor of using the most efficient technology possible. I'm just not in favor of having it imposed on me through taxation (without representation), force, and misinformation.

"The government which steps out of the ranks of the ordinary articles of consumption to select and lay under disproportionate burdens a particular one because it is a comfort, pleasing to the taste or necessary to the health and will therefore be bought, is in that particular a tyranny. Taxes on consumption like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1823.

 

[MercyfulFate]

Oh, please... so he uses a private jet and has a big house.
To assume that Gore's actions alone is anywhere comparable to the majority of corporations who intentionally dump their hazardous wastes into our oceans, skies and landfills... comparable to people who have no regard to saving energy by having every light on in the house with most electronic devices plugged up and in operation even if nobody is in the room... comparable to the millions of people who drive cars with horrible gas mileage everyday to places they could take public transportation to... then you've been duped just as much as the rest of the non-believers.

There isn't a single person out here, including Gore, that isn't responsible for the decline of our environment. We ALL contribute to some degree... but if we sit here and look at ourselves in an attempt to deter some of the blame we could always find someone else to compare our actions to just to look holier than thou. When you get right down to it, we're all human... and there aren't enough flags you can wave to change that fact.



Perhaps it's because the United States, as a country, produces more pollution than any other country out there? You really want other countries to adhering to our pollution standards, the country that is responsible for 1/4th of the world's carbon dioxide emissions? Hell, I'll chant "USA! USA!" like everyone else when it's appropriate, but even I know we could use some more work in pertains to the environment.

Even if countries like China and continents like Australia have recently overtaken us in particular areas, we have been at or near the top spot longer than any other country. No sense in looking at number one and wagging our fingers if we're number two. Second place only doesn't matter in sporting events and beauty pageants. The World’s Biggest Polluters | The New Ecologist

Even if India produces as much as a country like the UK, consider that the population of India is 15 times greater. Which basically means, even though they have more people they're doing less harm in causing air pollution. Now if they could only take care of their water problem, then maybe we could let them completely off the hook. But I digress, of course... Top 10 Most Polluted Countries - Crunkish

Then again, I'm sure most dissenters would say I'm just repeating Gore talking points, and since he didn't abandon every modern day appliance and go the way of the granola that he's a hypocrite. So be it. At the end of the day, everything we can do to improve our environment and prevent things like climate change are suggestions. Some we can do with no effort, others we will not because we may find it to be unnecessary. For instance, I'm not going to stop eating meat anytime soon. Does this mean I'm a bad person who doesn't believe in climate change or things that can help benefit our environment for not adhering to every single suggestion made, never mind converting to a completely vegetarian lifestyle? Of course not. With that said, I wouldn't be looking for every conspiracy theory out there to discredit decades upon decades of scientific research. I'm no physicist, weatherman or scientist. Sounds like many dissenters are just lazy and don't want to do a damn thing to better themselves or their surroundings. That's fine and dandy, but what's the alternative? Be a wasteful slob? No thanks.

We all contribute to some degree, exactly. So regardless of past pollution it should be handled across the board, not just by a handful.

You seem to think I'm saying something about America as a nationalist, but I'm not. I'm guessing you're throwing every argument at me regardless of what I actually said on it.

On the subject of meat eating and the like, "Organic" farming on a widespread scale can never be a reality, that's just the way it is. Projections say fully organic farming would only feed 4 billion people at the most, so it can't be done without mass starvation.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

We all contribute to some degree, exactly. So regardless of past pollution it should be handled across the board, not just by a handful.

And as much as some people want to think Gore is more of a problem, keep in mind who helped to bring this topic to the forefront? You think anyone of us would be talking about this now if it was just a bunch of scientists in robes speaking in equations?

You seem to think I'm saying something about America as a nationalist, but I'm not. I'm guessing you're throwing every argument at me regardless of what I actually said on it.

Well, at the end of the day when you get through all of the science it's all about whether or not you want to improve your way of life. Is criticizing Gore on his not-so-perfect actions really what we should be focused on? Is his use of a private jet plus cap & trade so big of an issue that we, as human beings, not adhere to even a fraction of the suggestions given by scientists that could help us improve our health & environment?

On the subject of meat eating and the like, "Organic" farming on a widespread scale can never be a reality, that's just the way it is. Projections say fully organic farming would only feed 4 billion people at the most, so it can't be done without mass starvation.

Some people will never have access to the perfect types of foods, especially the poor. Organic foods would be the healthiest choice but it's not as if the people who need access to it the most could actually afford it. Plus, there aren't enough farmers out there to meet the demand. At the same time, you always have a choice and there's always something that will do less harm. Even if one has to live on McDonald's for a month you could always stick with salads, grilled chicken and diet sodas. Even a Double Quarter Pounder drops in caloric & fat intake TREMENDOUSLY if you leave off the cheese.

I'm sure you know about these books, but if you haven't read "Eat This, Not That" it's recommended. Home | Eat This, Not That

 

[Big Al]

From a former climate warming scientist- this one's a doozy: Monbiot.com The Knights Carbonic

 

[Bbucko]

I'm not in favor of "big oil" either. I'm in favor of using the most efficient technology possible. I'm just not in favor of having it imposed on me through taxation (without representation), force, and misinformation.

Just because you didn't vote for the guy who won does not make a case for taxation without representation.