BOMBSHELL: New Hacked Emails Show Climate Scientists Pushing Global Warming Fraud

[Epic]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html

Amazing!

[fisharmor]

Dead link.

[Epic]

Dead link.

it worked for me but i changed it to the main link. it should work.

[Cap]

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wow. I don't think the enviro-marxists will ever see logic and reason, but for most of the people this may actually destroy the notion of AGW once and for all! Good riddance, but sadly, I don't think the measures in place like in Britain, Spain, etc. will change much. This could play out in weird ways....

[Elwar]

I've been reading through some of the e-mails...there's one arrogent "expert" who seems to be on an ivory tower who is all about manipulation (Phil Jones).

I did run across this e-mail:


From: "Mick Kelly" <m.kelly@uea.ac.uk>
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@hn.vnn.vn)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000

Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn't make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven't spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon's institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick



Though, being in the defense contracting business I know exactly what this is...they burned all through the money on the contract either working on other stuff or that's all they had...so they're telling them that they have money left because they're supposed to...so that they can get the add on contract so that they can use that money to finish the original contract. I used to have a boss that would do stuff like that all the time.

[Elwar]

Here's an example of the Phil dude's e-mail...reminds me of Ellsworth Toohey


Dear All,
I agree with all the points being made and the multi-authored article would be a
good idea,
but how do we go about not letting it get buried somewhere. Can we not address the
misconceptions by finally coming up with definitive dates for the LIA and MWP and
redefining what we think the terms really mean? With all of us and more on the paper,
it should
carry a lot of weight. In a way we will be setting the agenda for what should be being
done
over the next few years.
We do want a reputable journal but is The Holocene the right vehicle. It is
probably the
best of its class of journals out there. Mike and I were asked to write an article for
the EGS
journal of Surveys of Geophysics. You've not heard of this - few have, so we declined.
However,
it got me thinking that we could try for Reviews of Geophysics. Need to contact the
editorial
board to see if this might be possible. Just a thought, but it certainly has a high
profile.
What we want to write is NOT the scholarly review a la Jean Grove (bless her soul)
that
just reviews but doesn't come to anything firm. We want a critical review that enables
agendas to be set. Ray's recent multi-authored piece goes a lot of the way so we need
to build on this.
Cheers
Phil

[Deborah K]

I'm still waiting to see how they are going to justify restricting our rights and taxing us via 'cap and trade' while China gets away with massive pollution. Just how is that going to work?

[angelatc]

I'm still waiting to see how they are going to justify restricting our rights and taxing us via 'cap and trade' while China gets away with massive pollution. Just how is that going to work?

It will work quite well for China.

That's how Apple and Nike were able to pull out of the Chamber of Commerce over the issue. It gives them the liberal cred they use to target the limousine liberal business, but because their production facilities are in China, there's no real impact on them.

[Deborah K]

It will work quite well for China.

That's how Apple and Nike were able to pull out of the Chamber of Commerce over the issue. It gives them the liberal cred they use to target the limousine liberal business, but because their production facilities are in China, there's no real impact on them.

My point being that they can't justify forcing half the world into paying for carbon footprints and restricting our abilities to do business, and let the other half get away with not having to do it. That is not a winable argument and I don't get why more people aren't challenging it.

[legion]

Of course! People that aren't hard scientists need jobs too!

And physicists... need to tell us what dark matter/energy is. Dark is a good word because it makes it sound like it could be used for weapons... DoE, give me money!

Everything in chemistry is now "nanotechnology..."

This reminds me of a recent PhD comic...

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd111609s.gif

[purplechoe]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KXnntAGPxWw/SUEfS4rdzII/AAAAAAAAHfo/5JlrJ67li10/s400/2007-05-18Gore.jpg

[HOLLYWOOD]

And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.
And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia
And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..

you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.

you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning.

You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.

Interesting that this document describes methods of convincing the public of the “crisis”.



Excerpt:
a new way of thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works
Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting these people will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

[Dieseler]

I hope someone has downloaded all of this..
You know the scrubbing is about to begin if it hasn't already.

[purplechoe]

http://www.theclimatescam.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/global-warming.jpg

http://www.getliberty.org/content_images/Cartoon%20-%20Banner%20or%20Logic%20(600).jpg

http://www.seriouslybent.us/real_cause_of_global_warming.gif

[nbruno322]

YouTube - Rush Limbaugh Mentions Prison Planet Article On Al Gore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZxCijDxH9g)

[devil21]

I hope someone has downloaded all of this..
You know the scrubbing is about to begin if it hasn't already.

Files here
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

I downloaded but haven't looked at them yet. Lots to go through and Im sure much of it will make no sense to the layperson, kinda like reading a military report or something.

[BillyDkid]

One would hope this would be a bombshell, however, since it does not fit the agenda of the moment of the media and popular conciousness I'm sure it will make a ripple in the vast pond of stupidity that is humanity.

[awake]

Create a problem, present yourself as the solution, gain employment.

[tangent4ronpaul]

One would hope this would be a bombshell, however, since it does not fit the agenda of the moment of the media and popular conciousness I'm sure it will make a ripple in the vast pond of stupidity that is humanity.

FOX and the GOP should run with it - if they don't, the game it truly rigged.

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

Create a problem, present yourself as the solution, gain employment.

I think you just defined Congress.

-t

[amy31416]

For some balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

I'm in science, but I have absolutely no expertise on weather science, almost entirely different beast, but I'm waiting to see some analysis by experts in the field before I declare the information from the hack to be a smoking gun. From what I've read so far, there is none yet. I admit that I hope there is, but, gotta keep it real. :)

[tangent4ronpaul]

For some balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

I'm in science, but I have absolutely no expertise on weather science, almost entirely different beast, but I'm waiting to see some analysis by experts in the field before I declare the information from the hack to be a smoking gun. From what I've read so far, there is none yet. I admit that I hope there is, but, gotta keep it real. :)

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/19/former-thatcher-adviser-warns-that-climate-change-treaty-will-lead-to-world-government/

The guy was on Beck and did the math - btw: Beck can't follow math equations... might look for other stuff my him.

ah - here: http://vodpod.com/watch/2434021-glenn-beck-lord-monckton-debate-global-warming

the blackboard on the back has the math... FOX got the relative vids removed - looks like.

this one has some nice charts and lecture:

http://vodpod.com/watch/2400107-lord-christopher-monckton-on-climate-change-glenn-beck-the-912-project

At 1:29 he makes the point he made on Beck - which is basically if the world stopped using fossil fuels for 100 years, we could lower the world temp by 2 degrees. this vid is 1:35 as in an hour and a half - but looks like the best presentation.

I've also seen some stuff indicating it's normal cycles of weather - which are rather long and periodic - colder/warmer... but don't have a link. Poke around.

-t

[ChooseLiberty]

Any MSM coverage yet?

[SelfTaught]

Any MSM coverage yet?

You won't find it on MSNBC. They're having their green week or month or whatever that shit is.

[awake]

For the masses the truth doesn't matter... they believe that climate laws will benefit them and that they will some how win something.

The government is going to steal a bunch of money and anyone who wants to be a winner and get a cut of the loot had better line up and support it or they will be the losers.

[morran]

For the masses the truth doesn't matter... they believe that climate laws will benefit them and that they will some how win something.

The government is going to steal a bunch of money and anyone who wants to be a winner and get a cut of the loot had better line up and support it or they will be the losers.

Have you said this before or is my brain broken?


edit: I posted this previously in some other thread: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206 (the mails and documents, read for yourself)
The post at realclimate seems like damage control.

[ItsTime]

Is this for real? Anyway to verify?

[pcosmar]

Any MSM coverage yet?

Some, it's a start.

NOVEMBER 21, 2009, 3:39 P.M. ET
Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0

[oilboiler]

Exploding in the blogosphere and the MSM now

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Read All About it! Climate Depot Exclusive - Continuously Updated 'ClimateGate' News Round Up

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Updated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up

Main site, Climate Depot

http://www.climatedepot.com/

The Death Blow to Climate Science

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Australian Sun Blog

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

[erowe1]

It's in a WaPo article that's on Drudge now. That's as big as you can get without it being on TV network news. And GE/NBC at least wouldn't dare report on this except to defend global warming.

[denvervoipguru]

Call your local talk radio show TODAY and get the word spreading.
This could be the END of the global carbon poison lie!!!!

[denvervoipguru]

Dowload the emails and documents yourself at wikileaks.com

[Elwar]

Here's an interesting e-mail of what is to come next month:


AGU Climate Scientists,


We are writing to encourage hundreds of you to participate in a unique opportunity to
improve the public's climate knowledge during the week before and the week of this year's
AGU Fall Meeting.


As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists
and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the
American public's "belief" in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the
earth according to the Pew Center's October poll), and December's media blitz provides an
opportunity to reverse the trend.


Your participation is needed to ensure that climate science coverage across media channels
is accurate, fact-based, and nuanced. Provided that enough AGU members sign up to
participate, we will be offering the opportunity for journalists reporting during the
Copenhagen conference to submit their questions on-line and receive a response from a
climate expert before an article goes to press.


We are asking each of you to sign up for two hours over the course of those two weeks
(12/7-18) to respond to questions from journalists. You will be able to choose which
queries to answer based on your expertise, and there will be an option to double-team when
questions span multiple areas of expertise. We will be setting up the appropriate
logistics to enable both virtual participation and a central work area at the AGU meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to email Stacy Jackson at the email address below.


If you are willing to participate, please respond in the affirmative by Friday November
13th to [6]stacyjackson@berkeley.edu. Given the magnitude of the media coverage, we are
seeking several hundred willing climate scientists. More details will be forthcoming.


Thanks in advance,


Alan Robock, President, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section

Anne Thompson, President-Elect, AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section

References

1. https://www.associationsciences.org/agu/meet_demog.jsp
2. http://www.agu.org/governancevote/
3. mailto:stacyjackson@berkeley.edu
4. https://www.agu.org/givingtoagu/making_your_gift.php
5. mailto:robock@envsci.rutgers.edu
6. mailto:stacyjackson@berkeley.edu

[Elwar]

Also, in that same e-mail:


Second, I would like to give you some information about where your contributions to
AGU go. Last year, members of the Atmospheric Sciences Section contributed $43,410 to
AGU's Voluntary Contribution Campaign. In 2008, due largely to member donations like
these, AGU facilitated career development events attended by 600 students, hosted 75 K-12
teachers at Fall Meeting workshops, and sponsored 31 members' visits with U.S. policy
makers.

[0zzy]

Also, in that same e-mail:

at first I was going to say 31 congresspeople isn't really gonna give them a majority, but then I realized it says THIRTY FIVE TIMES! gee wizz why dont they just rent an apartment on capital hill and live there.

[Mini-Me]

Has this one been posted yet about scientists colluding to withhold data and methodology from other "loosecannon" scientists (who they're afraid might be honest), and scientists deleting emails prior to Freedom of Information Act requests?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php

I got it from this post on another forum:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1034946769&postcount=33

[Magicman]

Is it just me or this a good week on the fight against the New World Order...I mean we WON the Fed Audit bill back now we fought off against the fraud that is the Global Warming scheme. What's next?

Maybe, God really knows.

[morran]

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

Oops

[Dieseler]

Al Baby must be really freaking out.
Oh, by the way, did everyone here who doesn't believe in the scam being perpetrated by the global elite sign Lord Monckton's Instrument of Repudiation?
A few million more signatures to this could really put a bee in their bonnets.
http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php

[Pepsi]

The Principles of Climate Change Communication

Why were the principles created?

The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.

These principles were created as part of the UK Climate Change Communications Strategy, an evidence-based strategy aiming to change public attitudes towards climate change in the UK. This is a ‘short version’ of a far longer document of evidence that can be found at www.defra.gov.uk.

There is plenty of evidence relating to attitudes towards and behaviour on climate change, general environmental behaviour change and the whole issue of sustainable development communication. As we reviewed the research for these principles, one ‘überprinciple’ emerged:

“Changing attitudes towards climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap – it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.”

At first glance, some of the principles may seem counterintuitive to those who have been working on sustainable development or climate change communications for many years. Some confront dearly cherished beliefs about what works; a few even seem to attack the values or principles of sustainable development itself.

However, these principles are a first step to using sophisticated behaviour change modelling and comprehensive evidence from around the world to change attitudes towards climate change. We need to think radically, and the Rules of the Game are a sign that future campaigns will not be ‘business as usual’. This is a truly exciting moment.



Blowing Away Myths

Many of the oft-repeated communications methods and messages
of sustainable development have been dismissed by mainstream
communicators, behaviour change experts and psychologists.
Before we go into what works, our principles make a ‘clean sweep’
of what doesn’t:

1. Challenging habits of climate change communication Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human survival instincts

Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of little use for a change in climate measured in years.

Don’t create fear without agency Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.

Don’t attack or criticise home or family It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.

2. Forget the climate change detractors Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.

3. There is no ‘rational man’ the evidence discredits the ‘rational man’ theory – we rarely weigh objectively the value of different decisions and then take the clear
self-interested choice.

4. Information can’t work alone Providing information is not wrong; relying on information alone to change attitudes is wrong. Remember also that messages about saving money are important, but not that important.

A New Way of Thinking

Once we’ve eliminated the myths, there is room for some new ideas. These principles relate to some of the key ideas emerging from behaviour change modelling for sustainable development:

5. Climate change must be ‘front of mind’ before persuasion works Currently, telling the public to take notice of climate change is as successful as selling tampons to men. People don’t realise (or remember) that climate change relates to them.

6. Use both peripheral and central processing Attracting direct attention to an issue can change attitudes, but peripheral messages can be just as effective: a tabloid snapshot of Gwyneth Paltrow at a bus stop can help change attitudes to
public transport.

7. Link climate change mitigation to positive desires/aspirations Traditional marketing associates products with the aspirations of their target audience. Linking climate change mitigation to home improvement, self-improvement, green spaces or national pride are all worth investigating.

8. Use transmitters and social learning. People learn through social interaction, and some people are better teachers and trendsetters than others. Targeting thesepeople will ensure that messages seem more trustworthy and are
transmitted more effectively.

9. Beware the impacts of cognitive dissonance Confronting someone with the difference between their attitude and their actions on climate change will make them more likely to change their attitude than their actions.

linking policy and communications

These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change communications campaign right from the start:

10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear on exactly what it is and how it works.

11. Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.

Audience Principles

In contrast to the myths, this section suggests some principles that do work. These principles are likely to lead directly to a set of general messages, although each poses a significant implementation challenge:

12. Create ‘agency’ for combating climate change Agency is created when people know what to do, decide for themselves to do it, have access to the infrastructure in which to act, and understand that their contribution is important.

13. Make climate change a ‘home’ not ‘away’ issue Climate change is a global issue, but we will feel its impact at home –and we can act on it at home.
1
4. Raise the status of climate change mitigation behaviours. Research shows that energy efficiency behaviours can make you seem poor and unattractive. We must work to overcome thes eemotional assumptions.

15. Target specific groups. A classic marketing rule, and one not always followed by climate change communications from government and other sources.

Style Principles

These principles lend some guidance on the evidence of stylistic themes that have a high chance of success:

16. Create a trusted, credible, recognised voice on climate change We need trusted organisations and individuals that the media can call upon to explain the implications of climate change to the UK public.

17. Use emotions and visuals. Another classic marketing rule: changing behaviour by disseminating information doesn’t always work, but emotions and visuals usually do.

Effective management

These principles are drawn primarily from the experience of others, both in their successes and in the problems they faced:

18. The context affects everything. The prioritisation of these principles must be subject to ongoing assessments of the UK climate change situation.

19. The communications must be sustained over time.All the most successful public awareness campaigns have been sustained consistently over many years.

20. Partnered delivery of messages will be more successful Experience shows that partnered delivery is often a key component for projects that are large, complex and have many stakeholders.

[Pepsi]

Yet another scientific scandal has come to light which knocks another whopping crater in the already shattered theory of anthropogenic global warming. Eight peer-reviewed studies, which for years have played a significant supporting role behind the IPPC’s claims of AGW, have been shown to be fraudulent

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

[Immortal Technique]

i cant find a lib or dem board or forum in regards to this topic
the silence is deafening and so soothing lol

[WorldonaString]

If these emails get fully released in daylight, we're going to see some serious conversations start to question global warming on all fronts. MSM will have to acknowledge the evidence (or lack there of in the warm mongers case)

My question is...so if the world isn't actually warming (man made or otherwise) than to what extent is related issues such as the polar caps melting exagerated? For example, I find it hard to believe all of my friends who studied marine biology are lying about Mount Kilamanjaro losing nearly all of its snow when some of them visited first hand. Any thoughts, insights would be appreciated.

[Epic]

If these emails get fully released in daylight, we're going to see some serious conversations start to question global warming on all fronts. MSM will have to acknowledge the evidence (or lack there of in the warm mongers case)

My question is...so if the world isn't actually warming (man made or otherwise) than to what extent is related issues such as the polar caps melting exagerated? For example, I find it hard to believe all of my friends who studied marine biology are lying about Mount Kilamanjaro losing nearly all of its snow when some of them visited first hand. Any thoughts, insights would be appreciated.

Some places have more snow/more ice/high temps, and other places the opposite. Overall, the world has cooled for the past decade.

But it's not all about whether climate changes. Climate has always changed. It's about their models and the inability of the models to predict anything. The inability of the models to predict anything demonstrates that its more than likely that humans aren't a contributing factor.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Doublethink reaches new lows...

Here someone is trying to say that the e-mails don't mean what they say and the scientists just worded them poorly. He also tries to imply that some of the e-mails might have been doctored...

http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/node/25448?drgn=1

there is also a major push right now to sell climate change and drown out this story...

-t

[Elwar]

It's about their models and the inability of the models to predict anything. The inability of the models to predict anything demonstrates that its more than likely that humans aren't a contributing factor.

Models will predict whatever you want them to predict. I used to write computer models of wireless networks. One of the first things we'd ask when given a new contract was "what does the customer want to see?". Then we'd make sure that the output is what they wanted.

There's only so much fidelity that you can create in a model so you have to choose to focus on certain areas to simulate in detail (such as transmission power, distance, etc) while using abstracts for other areas (such as factoring in foilage or weather affects). Change a few numbers one way or another and the model could skew the complete opposite way.

If the PTB wanted global cooling, the models would be showing global cooling.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Prof. Joseph Alcamo is Chief Scientist (Designate) of the United Nations Environment Programme. He is currently Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research at the University of Kassel, Germany and Professor of Environmental Systems Science and Engineering. Alcamo has worked for 14 years with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and has been a lead author of many of its reports, including the most recent report on the impacts of climate change. He is well known for contributions to global modelling of the environment and development of global scenarios. Alcamo was winner of the international Max Planck Research Prize for achievements in global change research. He is an American citizen.

More disclosed:



From: Joseph Alcamo
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Rob.Swart@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: alcamo@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions –
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.

1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany
Phone: +49 561 804 3898
Fax: +49 561 804 3176

[TheEvilDetector]

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C _1996-2009

[morran]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html#% 20articleTabs=article

[tsopranos]

http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gw-al-gore-fire.jpg

Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Wash Times Americas Morning

YouTube - Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Wash Times Americas Morning (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs)


Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories'

YouTube - Climategate: 'Scientists would rather change facts than their theories' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDyfNVUt08)


Fox News: Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow

YouTube - Fox News: Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrkpp1Bf5zc)


Glenn Beck on "ClimateGate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy

YouTube - Glenn Beck on "ClimateGate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy 11-23-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA)



Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

YouTube - Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac)

[tsopranos]

Linked from Drudge (top left headline)

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/



If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

[tsopranos]

EDITORIAL: Hiding evidence of global cooling
Junk science exposed among climate-change believers

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


THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Scientific progress depends on accurate and complete data. It also relies on replication. The past couple of days have uncovered some shocking revelations about the baloney practices that pass as sound science about climate change.

It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.

Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

Mr. Mann admitted that he was party to this conversation and lamely explained to the New York Times that "scientists often used the word 'trick' to refer to a good way to solve a problem 'and not something secret.' " Though the liberal New York newspaper apparently buys this explanation, we have seen no benign explanation that justifies efforts by researchers to skew data on so-called global-warming "to hide the decline." Given the controversies over the accuracy of Mr. Mann's past research, it is surprising his current explanations are accepted so readily.

There is a lot of damning evidence about these researchers concealing information that counters their bias. In another exchange, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann: "If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone" and, "We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." Mr. Jones further urged Mr. Mann to join him in deleting e-mail exchanges about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) controversial assessment report (ARA): "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re [the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report]?"

In another e-mail, Mr. Jones told Mr. Mann, professor Malcolm K. Hughes of the University of Arizona and professor Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst: "I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!"

At one point, Mr. Jones complained to another academic, "I did get an email from the [Freedom of Information] person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn't be deleting emails." He also offered up more dubious tricks of his trade, specifically that "IPCC is an international organization, so is above any national FOI. Even if UEA holds anything about IPCC, we are not obliged to pass it on." Another professor at the Climate Research Unit, Tim Osborn, discussed in e-mails how truncating a data series can hide a cooling trend that otherwise would be seen in the results. Mr. Mann sent Mr. Osborn an e-mail saying that the results he was sending shouldn't be shown to others because the data support critics of global warming.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.

We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

Most important, however, these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory.

[Magicman]

The CRU is the front runner of information that is being used to make foreign policy, please read this link to understand how crucial the false information is on affecting foreign policy. There is trillions of dollars at stake because of what the CRU produces as FACT.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/three-things-you-absolutely-must-know-about-climategate


This may seem obscure, but the science involved is being used to justify the diversion of literally trillions of dollars of the world’s wealth in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by phasing out fossil fuels. The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

[Dreamofunity]

This is all very interesting. I hope it pans out much more over the next few days/weeks.

[sofia]

For some balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

I'm in science, but I have absolutely no expertise on weather science, almost entirely different beast, but I'm waiting to see some analysis by experts in the field before I declare the information from the hack to be a smoking gun. From what I've read so far, there is none yet. I admit that I hope there is, but, gotta keep it real. :)

You dont need to be an expert in climatology to see through the HOAX of global warming.

[Magicman]

We can fix our pollution, oil and carbon emissions using 'Algae Farms'.

YouTube - ALGAE -- THE HOLY GRAIL OF BIOFUEL? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyoKTbxerpQ)

[morran]

For some balance: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

I'm in science, but I have absolutely no expertise on weather science, almost entirely different beast, but I'm waiting to see some analysis by experts in the field before I declare the information from the hack to be a smoking gun. From what I've read so far, there is none yet. I admit that I hope there is, but, gotta keep it real. :)

You do realize that the people running RC are in those emails? They are trying to cover their asses and spin this story away. They are failing at it, since there really isn't a good way to explain their incompetence and fraud.

Also, fun for geeks and *channers (read the subtitles):

YouTube - All Your Emails Are Belong To Us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWAytBHG90)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Alex Jones on Climategate: Hoax of all time a global Ponzi scheme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2153PnMzSw)

[Son of Detroit]

Some guy on Cavuto is flipping out talking about Global Warming. I honestly thought he was about to lean over and punch Stuart Varney in the face.

[Chase]

I was watching that too. I couldn't help but yelp "Get him Varney!"

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climategate: UKIP MP Exposes the IPCC fraud in the EU parliament (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj81UczGCHc)

YouTube - Dubner Embraces ClimateGate: 'Everybody's Scared To Be A Skeptic' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3o-dc0kwHo)

YouTube - Climategate, Sen. Inhofe, Stuart Varney and Ed Begley Jr. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=429xoDtqS-A)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - ClimateGate Al Gore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2iXYyYljmE)

[Immortal Technique]

ge/nbc is now touching this, just seen a complete white wash propaganda piece on it on cnbc, i have the video rendering and will upload it shortly

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh man, Rothschilds have to be cursing. To someone who thinks some "outsider" hacked it, I think it was a whistleblower who knew the details and some of the measures they've taken have at least backed this up somewhat. Someone got a conscious before the atrocity that Copenhagen is. This gives me some more hope.. :p

[devil21]

Oh man, Rothschilds have to be cursing. To someone who thinks some "outsider" hacked it, I think it was a whistleblower who knew the details and some of the measures they've taken have at least backed this up somewhat. Someone got a conscious before the atrocity that Copenhagen is. This gives me some more hope.. :p

Whoever it is deserves The Person of the Century award! And the century just got started. Huge brass balls and a sense of right and wrong is what we need more of.

[pcosmar]

This gives me some more hope.. :p

5th Column perhaps.


One can hope. :D

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climategate-Morning Joe Covers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRkzO7oOLuw)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Global Warning: Leaked 'Climate Fraud' emails under probe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5y9JLeEsi4)

YouTube - Scientists under fire in climate change 'cover-up' scandal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_bFthzGQ0Q)

YouTube - Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Tim Flannery discusses climategate part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDFY192FzRU)

YouTube - Tim Flannery on climategate part 2 of 2.avi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNOY75_rsl8)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Michael Savage on Climategate - The Lid has been Blown off - Part 1 - 11/24/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXKG96m54mM)

YouTube - Michael Savage on Climategate - The Lid has been Blown off - Part 2 - 11/24/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgPaFXgjJ1k)

YouTube - CLIMATEGATE! Fox RIPS Global Warming Advocate! 1000's of Emails / Documents Reveal FRAUD! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHATItyOsdY)

YouTube - ClimateGate with Stuart Varney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI_Ywru1r9U)

[Dreamofunity]

Man, Savage is a fucking egomaniac.

[revolutionary8]

Willis Eschenbach’s FOI Request (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/willis-eschenbachs-foi-request/)
by stevemcintyre

Willis Eschenbach’s account of his FOI request has been published on other blogs (e.g. here ) but I’m re-publishing it because Willis actually sent it to me first and the events all played out and were documented in real time at Climate Audit (see here for posts on FOI). After pursuing matters until April 2007, Willis gave up. The next part of the story started again in June 2009 when I decided to try again for the station data, this time initially requesting station data received by the Hadley Center (on the basis that they might not be able to assert exemptions claimed by Hadley Center. ) This, of course, led to an interesting sequence of events last summer, resulting in the present situation.

In the Climategate Letters, early on, Phil Jones expressed his worry that McKitrick and I might discover this legislation. In fact, it was Willis who discovered that the applicability of the legislation. Thus, his story below. This is one perspective and an interesting one. read more…

excerpt from Eschenbach:

the issue is not Trenberth or scientists talking smack. It is the illegal evasion of legitmate scientific requests for data needed to replicate a scientific study. Without replication, science cannot move forwards. And when you only give data to friends of yours, and not to people who actually might take a critical look at it, you know what you end up with? A “consensus” …

also see:

Global Warming ate my data (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Fox News Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTQjUZD1CY)

[revolutionary8]

PC, that tube was posted on pg. 6 of this thread by tsopranos :)

Yes, it is interesting, that Big Govy.com or whoever he is does a pretty good job, allthough, I'd rather him attack the coding w/in the programming rather than the emails. Edit- Ex that on second viewing, thanks for posting again, I think he did a good job of getting to the point in the little time he had, and sometimes I forget who these people are dealing with. :)
That pretty boy TMZ style hippiepolitico is a total joke. No wonder FOX is accused of being less than "Fair and Balanced" lmao. This is a dream, bring in Ed Bagelhead Jr. to wake me up.

[purplechoe]

PC, that tube was posted on pg. 6 of this thread by tsopranos :)

Yes, it is interesting, that Big Govy.com or whoever he is does a pretty good job, allthough, I'd rather him attack the coding w/in the programming rather than the emails. Edit- Ex that on second viewing, thanks for posting again, I think he did a good job of getting to the point in the little time he had, and sometimes I forget who these people are dealing with. :)
That pretty boy TMZ style hippiepolitico is a total joke. No wonder FOX is accused of being less than "Fair and Balanced" lmao. This is a dream, bring in Ed Bagelhead Jr. to wake me up.

that's why I posted it again, it was really a great discussion... :)

This thing needs to go viral. We have 2 weeks... march on.

[revolutionary8]

that's why I posted it again, it was really a great discussion... :)

This thing needs to go viral. We have 2 weeks... march on.

check out +/- 3:20

"someone inside with a conscience."
Lmfo

I'd rather be crying.

[ElyaKatz]

YouTube - Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT

Very interesting video, that. G-d bless the internet. We would not have such easy access to this sort of information without it. I have recently heard that the Obama Administration wants to start regulating it though. Enjoy while you can I suppose. Seems mankind doesn't learn from it's vast experience with totalitarianism. Very sad indeed, especially for the children.

Re the Russian "scientist" who claims Russia never experienced a problem with malaria...who does the man think he's dealing with? All I had to do was enter the search terms "Russia malaria" and the following article popped up from the CDC. Perhaps the average Russian doesn't have access to the internet, or suffers from heavy censorship, thus they can't check facts?

Perspectives: From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol6no1/reiter.htm)

"Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle.

"During the Medieval Warm Period, mention of malarialike illness was common in the European literature from Christian Russia to caliphate Spain: 'As one who has the shivering of the quartan so near,/ that he has his nails already pale/ and trembles all, still keeping the shade,/ such I became when those words were uttered.' (The Inferno, Dante [1265-1321]).

"Laboratory studies have shown that tropical strains of P. falciparum do not multiply in European mosquitoes. However, European strains did cause major epidemics in Russia and Poland in the 1920s, with high death rates as far north as Archangel, Russia.

"Thus, there was endemic transmission in southern Sweden and Finland, with occasional devastating epidemics that extended to the northern end of the Gulf of Bothnia, close to the Arctic Circle (25,26). In North America transmission occurred throughout most of the United States (27) and in some parts of Canada (28)."

Based on this article, seems to me, the Russian guy is either an ignoramus or a liar.

Malaria was also, at one time, endemic the entire united States, with an especially late eradication in the following states, with DDT being credited in finally winning the battle: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Below are a few more to add to the mix...Lord Monkton again, appearing on Canadian Television, Michael Coren's show.

1/5


YouTube - Exposing Global Warming Lies- Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton 1/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtO9USOeWY)

2/5


YouTube - Exposing Global Warming Lies- Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton 2/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzKnV0K8sdc)

3/5


YouTube - Exposing Global Warming Lies- Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton 3/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzLdDm1wav0)

4/5


YouTube - Exposing Global Warming Lies- Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton 4/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BCGAVh_iqQ)

5/5


YouTube - Exposing Global Warming Lies- Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton 5/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ForXitCVY)

Last but not least...well, it's funny anyway. No one can compete with Monkton, not even a Hitler basher.


YouTube - Hitler vs AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming, ala "Man-made climate change") (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTGLpqFGyYM)

[revolutionary8]

Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Bio

By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

A throwback to the intro of the television series Dragnet, “Ladies and Gentlemen: “The story you are about to hear is true, only the names have been changed to protect the innocent”, the innocent in Climategate have already been thrown to the ravening wolves.

“There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.

“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”

Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.
How the deed was done

“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

Dear All,

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar.

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

The Wednesday Breakfast Group

“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website 1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.”

No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

“Schulz provides a solid summary when he writes, “I’ll close by saying I’m willing to admit that, as someone lacking a PhD, I could be punching above my weight. But I will ask you a different but related question. How much hope is there for reaching reasonable public policy decisions that affect the lives of millions if the science upon which those decisions must be made is said to be by definition beyond the reach of those people?”

“We now know it was deliberately placed beyond the reach of the people by the group that he used to ridicule Soon and Baliunas. Holdren was blinded by his political views, which as his record shows are frightening. One web site synthesizes his position on over-population as follows, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A “Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death over American citizens.”

“Holdren has a long history of seeking total government control. He was involved in the Club of Rome providing Paul Ehrlich with the scientific data in his bet with Julian Simon. Ehrlich lost the bet. Holdren’s behavior in this sorry episode with Soon and Baliunas is too true to form and shows the leopard never changes his spots,” Ball concludes.

Meanwhile, even with an AWOL mainstream media, the Climategate snakes continue to slither out from under the rocks.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

[EndDaFed]

Why the leaked emails will do nothing.

YouTube - True News: Global Warming Hack, Illegal Downloading & Unemployment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEFv4_OGY_o)

[tangent4ronpaul]

YouTube - Fox News Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFTQjUZD1CY)

At the end... "ocean acidification" - can you say fertilizer and pesticide runoff? Monsanto? hmmmm....

The plot thickens - and in directions TPTB don't want to come to light....

-t

[BenIsForRon]

Hey guys, I'm here to break up this echo chamber a little bit.

Read the response to the accusations by Michael Mann.

http://www.examiner.com/x-10722-Austin-Science-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d25-Climatolgist-Michael-Mann-responds-to-CRU-hack

[tangent4ronpaul]

Many of the short (about 1-5 year) cold events during the last six centuries can be explained by the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions.

VE MUST REGULATE VOLCANO'S! - I'm sure they will listen to our mandates!

"Many" - hu? - and the rest? Is "Many" a majority of them?


The authors were able to compare (or calibrate) their density records directly against instrumental data; note that the tree-ring density records become de-coupled from temperature after 1950, possibly due to some large-scale human influence that caused wood densities to decline. Thus, the reconstructed temperature record after 1960 is considered unreliable.

oooohhh - ooooohhhh! - HUMANS are responsible for wood density declines - RIIIIIIGHT!


Scientists all choose journals in which we publish and we all recommend to each other and our students which journals they should publish in.

You must spout the correct line - comrades! Only use approved and "fellow traveler" lines of propaganda - less we get discredited... Hoodwink the legitimate journals through false acceptance of results by bought co-conspirators.

SQUIRM!, SQUIRM! - This BS is so laughable it ain't funny.... :rolleyes:

-t

[purplechoe]

YouTube - ClimateGate debate in BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIWj9_SiAE)

YouTube - Climategate IPCC scientist Dr Kevin Trenberth on Phil Jones hacked e-mails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMs1xm7jGw)

YouTube - 570 News Caller asks Why Media is Ignoring ClimateGate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QskjYP1pHW4)

[Epic]

Why the leaked emails will do nothing.



its not the emails its the code and comments

all the CRU data is untrustworthy

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Nick Griffin EU Speech - Preparation of the Copenhagen summit on climate change debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzjlK1hpF6M)

[Magicman]

If anyone wants to participate in this Myspace discussion join here:

http://forums.myspace.com/t/4673553.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread&PageIndex=1&SortOrder=0

[Magicman]

its not the emails its the code and comments

all the CRU data is untrustworthy

Does anyone have an exact count of how many CRU people are involved in this scandal?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

Amazing!

The theory of global warming doesn't have to be a fraud in order for it to be found irresponsible. The evidence purporting to substantiate global warming was documented back when science had an agenda to lift the third world out from its primitive state into the modern. Although it still uses the primitive world to pack in its supplies, today's science takes on a different agenda with it more against progress while it is irresponsibly using yesterday's evidence to do so.
In other words, science has become so arrogant that it no longer understands its own philosophy or when it is in violation of it.
Why do we continue trying to save every species on earth when, in order to substantiate biological evolution, it has been proven that countless millions of transitional species had to have gone extinct? Why is science trying to save every insect and frog?
Well, its because science no longer understands and is no longer obedient to its own philosophy.

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton - part 1 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBQYlIikLBM)

YouTube - Climate-Gate. Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton - Part 2 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg5YZipFA2Q)

YouTube - Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton part 3 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHQYm9lY1Y8)

YouTube - Climate-Gate - Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton part 4 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI)

YouTube - Climate-Gate. Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton part 5 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjo6QUK9lqc)

YouTube - Climategate - Chris Horner - Red Hot Lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5iNWUILCag)

YouTube - Turn Down the Heat on 'Climate-Gate' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsxelUfbfoE)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - 2009-11-27-RDI-Climate-Gate-Wont-Go-Away-Report-It.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZx90EH8N8)

YouTube - "Climategate Emails" - PROVE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1onwbAT5WQE)

YouTube - ClimateGate: Astrophysicist Giuliana Conforto about the Global Warming Hoax! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF6D25kjrcA)

[revolutionary8]

I endorse Chris Horner for Climategate MSM Spokesman.

Thanks for posting the vid- he dives right in to the code! He's a code diver! :D

One for the home team. Bravo.

Battle down the hatches.

He failed at 3:00 - he needs to remind these people that there is a BIG difference in MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING and GLOBAL WARMING. They seriously don't get it. I hear "Global Warming Denier" and I want to throw something and break a window.

Hey, get this. The climate changes. It changed A LAWT before we got here. The climate will change even if every human were wiped off of the face of the earth. I think maybe THE SUN has something to do with it, among other things like volcanos and oceans, but what do I know?
(apparently more than A LAWT)
lol

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. He's right that it doesn't look good that his May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" Mr. Mann says he didn't delete any such emails, but the point is that Mr. Jones wanted them hidden.

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.

[revolutionary8]

From your article Tg4RP-

"This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers."

From all I have seen thus far, McIntyre (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/#more-62) is the real deal. Super real deal.

You might want to check out his intel. Just a thought."

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
-Sun Tzu

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

From your article Tg4RP-


From all I have seen thus far, McIntyre (http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/the-trick/#more-62) is the real deal. Super real deal.

You might want to check out his intel. Just a thought."

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
-Sun Tzu

The Truth will set you free -- The Almighty
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- The Christian Founding Fathers.
Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins

As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident(ly clear in the conscience of every living human being as undeniable), that all men (as they understood the term to mean both male and female in the Garden of Eden) are created equal, that they are endowed (we are endowed by natural law, not by DnA, by past tradition, by legal precedent, or by any future occurences yet to happen with this meaning that the power in this Truth has always been, is, and will always be greater than the power of the reality deceiving us away from it.) by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (these rights being true to the extent that they reduce down like DnA to become politically bipartisan as they are known not in our minds but in our American hearts and souls), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (This is the business agenda of every living human being whether he be the greatest emperor sitting on the throne as the owner of all the land or whether she be the lowest prostitute trespassing on his property).

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m11d30-Climategate-Penn-State-Professor-Mann-under-investigation

Climategate: Penn State Professor Mann under investigation

Penn State University is home to the largest meteorology program in the nation. It's something they are proud of. They are also home to Professor Michael Mann, who was exposed for 'tricking data' in CRU documents recently released in what is now known as Climategate. Mann is responsible for developing the famous hockey stick diagram of historical global temperatures used in Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. This was designed to highlight abrupt warming in the past century that looks like a hockey stick on a timeline. We now know that to not be true... The trick, unfortunately made some aspects of past climate hide extremes to exaggerate any warming in recent years. Here is the e-mail that was sent from Phil Jones at CRU to the authors of the hockey stick. In it, credit is given to Mike for his 'trick' to manipulate data:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

Penn State has been overwhelmed with the response from the scientific community. It was left with no other option but investigate. The official Penn State statement:

University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.
In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

My question: What does this say for the integrity of their entire department? It is hard to imagine that Mann was the only person involved in manipulating the data at Penn State. What other faculty, and perhaps even grad students were part of the scheme?

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m10d25-Global-Warming-losing-support-from-American-public

Global Warming losing support from American public

http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11224/images/WarmingPoll2.gif

The activists that have been pushing Global Warming had changed their language recently to Climate Change since, well, the planet is not warming. Just last winter some tried to dismiss this by saying that natural forces will stop global warming for years or decades before returning. In fact, 2008 was the coolest year for the planet since 2000. Sure there are reports about warming, but their is a discrepancy in the scientific community about the best way to measure global temperature. The support for global warming comes from ground based weather stations, which has been shown to be flawed. In this report from surfacestations.org, 90% of US weather stations have been found to report temperatures too warm. This has been attributed to factors such are placement on asphalt parking lots, and exhaust from buildings ventilation systems. The satellite based temperature measurements, a system devised and perfected by Dr. Roy Spencer shows that the planet as actually been cooling on average in the past decade.

From April 2008 to October 2009, there were 1,500 people surveyed:

A comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.

See more poll questions and results in the slide show below:

When world leaders claim that we have a benchmark approaching for no turning back, it seems a bit contrived. The claims of how long we have left have contradicted themselves, as reported here last March. Many stories have been covered here and by my predecessor are just a small sampling of the contradiction to what has been portrayed by the mass media.

* Arctic Sea Ice shows a recovery but NASA is not telling you
* G-8 Nations promise to stop global warming but it's already cooling
* NASA report of thinning arctic ice is deceiving
* Unusually cool and wet spring in the US
* Read scientists open letter to congress: You are being deceived about global warming
* Why did the EPA smother a scientific report that questioned global warming?
* Obama targets greenhouse gases for cars after a morning with record low temperatures
* The Gore Effect
* Great Lakes ignore global warming
*
Global Warming may stop for years or decades
*
Father of Gaia says green movement is a bogus money scheme
*
Global warming protest may get snowed out
*
Ocean cooling follow up with Antarctic warming AND cooling reports
*
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
*
2008 was the coolest year for the planet since 2000
Scientists tell Congress that Earth is in a CO2 famine and more would be a good thing

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m7d1-Read-scientists-open-letter-to-congress-You-are-being-decieved-about-global-warming

Read scientists open letter to congress: You are being decieved about global warming

Here is the actual letter sent to congress by a group of highly accredited scientists stating that "Earth has been cooling for 10 years". The authors signed below with their credentials for cross reference. Below the letter is a link to a recent article with similar tones and more scientific evidence. All comments are welcome.

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES: YOU ARE BEING DECEIVED ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING



You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President's science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN'T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.



Signed by,



Robert H. Austin

Professor of Physics

Princeton University

Fellow APS, AAAS

American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences



William Happer

Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics

Princeton University

Fellow APS, AAAS

Member National Academy of Sciences



S. Fred Singer

Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia

First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service

Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU



Roger W. Cohen

Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)

Fellow APS



Harold W. Lewis

Professor of Physics Emeritus

University of California at Santa Barbara

Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study



Laurence I. Gould

Professor of Physics

University of Hartford

Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS



Richard Lindzen

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS

Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters

Member National Academy of Sciences



For More information: Why did the EPA smother a scientific report that questioned global warming?

Thanks to Marc Marano from Climatedepot.com for the letter

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Why-did-the-EPA-smother-a-scientific-report-that-questioned-global-warming

Why did the EPA smother a scientific report that questioned global warming?

Alan Carlin, a PhD and seasoned veteran at the EPA may become a folk hero to climate change skeptics, but he may also lose his job. At least according to an interview this morning on Fox news, he was grateful that he still had a job. A report he submitted back in March had called to question many points of the Global Warming Theory based on current data. The internal e-mails were leaked out, perhaps in response to the recent passing of the high taxing climate change bill. I recently wrote an article that highlighted four points of climate change skeptics. Many more were raised by this paper. According to Carlin and his co authors:

* Global temperatures have actually declined in the last 11 years, despite increases in CO2.
* Increased tropical storm activity has repeatedly been cited as a sign of anthropogenic global warming and yet that has not occurred.
* The IPCC in its reports has claimed that Greenland would shed its ice and that has not happened at all.
* Recent studies have concluded that the Global Climate Models used by the IPCC are faulty and “not supported by empirical evidence.”
* Studies also suggest the IPCC dismissed the effect of solar variability based on faulty data and new research shows that “up to 68% of the increase in Earth’s global temperatures” could be caused by solar variability.
* Analysis of surface stations that monitor temperatures has shown that most fail to meet the most basic meteorological guidelines for proper sighting resulted in inaccurate measurements. The “Urban Heat Island” effect is considered key to this.
* Satellite temperature measurements taken from 1978 to 2008 do not show an increased rate of warming over the 30 year period.

Are politics blocking science on this issue? Carlin suggested that old science is being used for current policies, and the ideas are out of date. New evidence has backed a growing number of outspoken scientists on the skeptics side. This is new science with limited recorded data. Computer models have been wrong in their expectations up until now, so what about the next few decades? I support less pollution and renewable energy, but not at the cost of deceiving the public.

A full detailed background on this topic was discussed today by Denver Weather Examiner Tony Hake. If you have any interest in what is happening, I suggest you read his article.

Many other points have been made by my predecessor on Examiner.com and radio partner Justin Berk, Meteorologist AMS CBM, You can find his reports on Climate Change and Global Warming here. Some of his topics include:

Great Lakes ignore global warming

Al Gore and Prince Charles please stop giving me things to write about


Global Warming may stop for years or decades
2009 International Conference on Climate Change
Global warming skeptics on video discussing how they have been villified
Scientists tell Congress that Earth is in a CO2 famine and more would be a good thing
2008 was the coolest year for the planet since 2000
Global Warming debate heats up
Father of Gaia says green movement is a bogus money scheme
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
Ocean cooling follow up with Antarctic warming AND cooling reports

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m6d26-No-climate-change-but-yes-for-clean-energy-only-if-it-is-responsible

No climate change but yes for a different clean energy bill

The vote on the Climate Change Bill, otherwise known as House Resolution 2454, has been rushed through so fast in order to pull the wool over our eyes. The debate is not over and the science is not settled...not by a long shot! There is no doubt that the increasing population and extent of technology requires more efficient, cleaner energy. But politics is replacing, not embracing, science on this issue. Is cap and trade the answer? Is a war on carbon dioxide the answer? Keep reading to see just some of the flaws in this approach.

First, Climate Change and Global Warming are buzz terms that are still quite subjective. While we have been overwhelmed by the media coverage of Al Gore and the IPCC report, there is a lot lost in the translation. Recovering sea ice has been under reported...I could write a book on it, and many people have. However, for the purpose of this story, I want to be more fair than Congressional leaders. I want you to read this, with plenty of time to spare.

The Skeptic's Handbook

A skeptic is a person who will not subject himself to popularity or authority in order to accept the truth of opinion. I have always followed the motto that proof of warming is not proof that greenhouse gasses caused it. Joanne Nova recently put together, "The Skeptic's Handbook", with four distinct points to support this argument. She was an advocate for greenhouse gas reduction from 1990 until 2007. Who better than a recent convert to the skeptic side to make these points below? (Supporting images can be found in the slide show below.)

1. The Greenhouse signature is missing.

The computer modeling just doesn't fit what was expected and what has occurred - not whether or not it's warmer, but that other levels of the atmosphere are much cooler than expected. Check out the first two images in the slide show. The science on this is still young, and we don't know everything. Mistakes have been made in expectation of warming.

2. The strongest evidence was the ice cores, but newer, more detailed data turned the theory inside out.

Look at the charts of the Vostok Ice Cores from 150,000 years ago. The CO2 from the atmosphere is measured in trapped air bubbles. It turns out that the temperature increased about 800 years before CO2 increased. Think of how a warm bottle of soda will explode when you open it. The oceans give off more trapped CO2 when they warm. El Nino events can do the same thing.

If you look at the charts more closely, I have identified times when CO2 went up but temperature went down. Some other force must have been involved in climate change and may very well be governing it today.

3. Temperature is not rising.

The year 1998 was the second warmest on record. In fact, 1934 still ranks as the hottest (in the US. Global records are not reliable that far back). High temperatures must have been due to factors other than rising CO2 since 64 years span between the two warmest years with many cool spells. The chart of temperature and CO2 in recent years shows that since 2001, both satellite and surface data do not indicate warming. In fact, since 2003, temperatures have actually gotten cooler on average.

There is also a flaw among the reporting stations. Many NOAA weather stations do not comply with their own standards. The well- know phenomenon of the urban heat island does much more than keep the cities warmer at night. The same conditions of concrete, asphalt, and brick buildings that hold in heat are too close to these weather stations. In some cases, official weather stations have been moved next to exhaust fans of buildings. That hardly seems accurate and legitimate when they should be in open fields, away from tall objects and raised six feet off the ground!

4. Carbon Dioxide is already doing almost all of the warming it can do.

The influence of CO2 has peaked out. Adding more will not necessarily produce more heat. It's like adding too much sugar to your coffee. At some point, the sugar will just collect on the bottom. The sweetness has been maxed out. It should also be noted that CO2 is found in soda, and it makes up the gas we exhale. Will these sources be subject to cap and trade? That is a fiscally conservative question, but it does apply for all. The war declared on carbon dioxide does not have the best science to support it. Perhaps war should be declared on methane. It has 20 times the capacity to absorb heat per molecule; therefore, taxing flatulence seems much more appropriate. It could be linked in with a smoking tax and considered second hand smoke.

Clean Energy vs. Cap and Trade

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion by the year 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035

I support clean energy. I support solar panels that are more efficient than those that are on the market today. I support off-shore wind turbines, but these are opposed by NIMBY activists on many coastal areas. There is no clear plan to make a transition to alternative energy. Look how corn for ethanol turned out. It's better that we figure out a proper way to progress rather than make a rushed judgment on poorly explained science.
For the complete information from Joanne Nova : joannenova.com.au;
Most NOAA weathe stations are inaccurate: See more at surfacestations.org
Justin Berk's story: Global Warming may stop for years or decades

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Al Gore - Losing his religion, climategate.. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JJ4-rcHY1w)

YouTube - ClimateGate debate in BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDIWj9_SiAE)

YouTube - ClimateGate BBC Question time part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qHAV22r1So)

YouTube - ClimateGate BBC Question time 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4XelBKMUVg)

YouTube - Climategate - Malcolm Turncoat Political Suicide 1.00pm 29-11-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nexPUbCMTVk)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - New York speaks out on 'Climategate' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql7RksXZQBM)

YouTube - The media's attempt to whitewash climategate, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDc60m6Z6yQ)

YouTube - Liberal Media White Wash Of Climategate Emails (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpYJyowEWBE)

YouTube - Where Does Al Gore Stand on Climategate? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhlBQnjMXPU)

YouTube - Paul Krugman in denial over climategate scandal - ABC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqCtPSvQMXo)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - White House - Gibbs Ignores Climate Gate And 6000 PHDs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeaQw6EcvUE)

YouTube - Michael Coren on Climategate - part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1IrGYz4bos)

YouTube - Michael Coren on Climategate - part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJQ9USCDvN4)

YouTube - Cavuto - Climategate - This Is The Greatest Lie Of All Time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNaAcEzbcq4)

[devil21]

^^^^
Good god I fucking hate Paul Krugman. He's the biggest bought-and-paid-for shill for EVERYTHING that Obama and the global banking elites wants to push. Jeeez just glue your lips to his Obama's cock and walk around on your knees in front of him. Just save us the charade and the insults to my intelligence.

[revolutionary8]

The Truth will set you free -- The Almighty
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- The Christian Founding Fathers.
Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery -- Uncle Emanuel Watkins

As in "We hold these truths to be self-evident(ly clear in the conscience of every living human being as undeniable), that all men (as they understood the term to mean both male and female in the Garden of Eden) are created equal, that they are endowed (we are endowed by natural law, not by DnA, by past tradition, by legal precedent, or by any future occurences yet to happen with this meaning that the power in this Truth has always been, is, and will always be greater than the power of the reality deceiving us away from it.) by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (these rights being true to the extent that they reduce down like DnA to become politically bipartisan as they are known not in our minds but in our American hearts and souls), that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (This is the business agenda of every living human being whether he be the greatest emperor sitting on the throne as the owner of all the land or whether she be the lowest prostitute trespassing on his property).


"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles;..."

To have real knowledge, is to know the truth.

Thanks so much for the video pc. :)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climate Gate: FOX News Admits Global Warming is a Hoax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXBo20oztXk)

YouTube - 'Climategate' rap battle: Gore No More, Don't buy his Lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBvdd_nHJ40)

YouTube - Michael Savage Inerviews Patrick J. Michaels - Global Warming is a Fraud - Part 1 of 2 - (11/30/09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyiI-4xvIgQ)

YouTube - Michael Savage Inerviews Patrick J. Michaels - Global Warming is a Fraud - Part 2 of 2 - (11/30/09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOq6Xsaarzc)

YouTube - Xtra Xtra read all about it irish newspaper prints something about Climategate.mov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdy41jwdxLQ)

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120102737.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Climate scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 1, 2009; 3:45 PM

A scientist who is one of the central figures in the controversy over hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit announced Tuesday that he is stepping down while the university investigates the incident.

Climate skeptics have seized on several e-mails from Phil Jones, director of the university's Climatic Research Unit, to other researchers as evidence that prominent scientists have sought to silence their voice in the debate over global warming. The e-mails were pirated and posted online last month.

"What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," Jones said in a statement. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support."

East Anglia's Vice-Chancellor Professor Edward Acton said he had "accepted Professor Jones's offer to stand aside during this period. It is an important step to ensure that CRU can continue to operate normally and the independent review can conduct its work into the allegations."

Action added the university will disclose details of the probe, including who will head it and how long it will last "within days."

Marc Morano, who edits the climate skeptic blog, ClimateDepot.com, welcomed the news with an e-mail stating, "One Down: ClimateGate Scientist Phil Jones to temporarily step down... 'pending investigation into allegations that he overstated case for man-made climate change.'"

-t

[BenIsForRon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6647504/Climate-change-scientist-at-centre-of-leaked-email-row-absolutely-stands-by-his-findings.html

I don't know what Phil Jones's deal was, but he makes some good points in this article. I quote the significant one.


That the world is warming is based on a range of sources: not only temperature records but other indicators such as sea level rise, glacier retreat and less Arctic sea ice," he said. "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for Nasa and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.

So, do you guys think that NASA and the Climate Data Center are all conspiring with the global elites to push this hoax on us? That would be an even bigger conspiracy than 9/11 being an inside job.

[purplechoe]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6647504/Climate-change-scientist-at-centre-of-leaked-email-row-absolutely-stands-by-his-findings.html

I don't know what Phil Jones's deal was, but he makes some good points in this article. I quote the significant one.



So, do you guys think that NASA and the Climate Data Center are all conspiring with the global elites to push this hoax on us? That would be an even bigger conspiracy than 9/11 being an inside job.

For Christs sakes!!! FUCK!!!!!! The Fed is a fucking conspiracy!!!! Is anybody fucking home???? Is there any brain activity, HELLOOO????? :rolleyes: :p :mad: :(

Stick a fork in this movement, with complete idiocy like this, it's done!!! Do the rest of us a favor, take your fucking ball and go home!!!

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Glenn Beck Interviews James Delingpole About "Climategate" Media Coverage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhLUsOkftio)

[BenIsForRon]

For Christs sakes!!! FUCK!!!!!! The Fed is a fucking conspiracy!!!! Is anybody fucking home???? Is there any brain activity, HELLOOO????? :rolleyes: :p :mad: :(

Stick a fork in this movement, with complete idiocy like this, it's done!!! Do the rest of us a favor, take your fucking ball and go home!!!

Excuse me? My question was: Do you believe that NASA and the National Climate Data Center are in on it? Are all of the rest of the geologists and climatologists across the country in on it? What about journalists who have done significant research (Michael Ruppert)?

[dannno]

Excuse me? My question was: Do you believe that NASA and the National Climate Data Center are in on it?

Who is NASA? Who is the National Climate Data Center? Do you think that it would require every employee in the organization to manipulate some data, or maybe 1 or 2 employees?



Are all of the rest of the geologists and climatologists across the country in on it?

No :rolleyes:

In fact 30,000 joined with John Coleman to try to sue Al Gore. They obviously aren't "in on it". Al Gore only has like 3,000 scientists on his side.

Try to look at this a bit more objectively.



What about journalists who have done significant research (Michael Ruppert)?

They were researching bad data. That's what the e-mails are about.

[BenIsForRon]

The conclusion of Jones's data echoes conclusions from data of other major research that has happened at NASA, the Climate Data Center, and many other institutions, including prestigious universities across the country.

I see one of two scenarios, all these guys are in on it together, and are fudging the numbers... or they are genuinely looking at the facts and coming up with a likely explanation for global warming.

[jmdrake]

The conclusion of Jones's data echoes conclusions from data of other major research that has happened at NASA, the Climate Data Center, and many other institutions, including prestigious universities across the country.

I see one of two scenarios, all these guys are in on it together, and are fudging the numbers... or they are genuinely looking at the facts and coming up with a likely explanation for global warming.

NASA was caught back in 2007 fudging climate change numbers.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public

The most likely explanation for climate change (no longer called "global warming" since the earth is now cooling) is variation in sunspot activity.

Further I wouldn't doubt multiple agencies might be "in on it" together. I mean come on. You quoted Michael Ruppert. He believes 9/11 was coordinated by multiple government agencies!

Still there's another effect that you aren't considering. Scientists are subject to peer pressure just like anyone else. In fact that's why scientific journals are "peer reviewed". If your papers don't get published you don't get funded. If the top respected "peers" in your field don't like your research because it contradicts their own they will rank down your paper. I know this because I've seen it. And this was in research not nearly as politicized as global warming.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[__27__]

The conclusion of Jones's data echoes conclusions from data of other major research that has happened at NASA, the Climate Data Center, and many other institutions, including prestigious universities across the country.

I see one of two scenarios, all these guys are in on it together, and are fudging the numbers... or they are genuinely looking at the facts and coming up with a likely explanation for global warming.

CRU IS the data. NASA gets their data from CRU. UNIPCC gets their data from CRU. EVERYONE gets their data from CRU. If the books were cooked at CRU, ALL the data is cooked.

Have you looked into geologists and the geologic record like I suggested before?

[Dionysus]

Financial Times: Secrecy in Science is a Corrosive Force

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

[revolutionary8]

Excuse me? My question was: Do you believe that NASA and the National Climate Data Center are in on it? Are all of the rest of the geologists and climatologists across the country in on it? What about journalists who have done significant research (Michael Ruppert)?

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

Washington DC, Jan 27th 2009: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice-President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon, the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch explained.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,” Theon wrote. [Note: NASA scientist James Hansen has created worldwide media frenzy with his dire climate warning, his call for trials against those who dissent against man-made global warming fear, and his claims that he was allegedly muzzled by the Bush administration despite doing 1,400 on-the-job media interviews! - See: Don't Panic Over Predictions of Climate Doom - Get the Facts on James Hansen - UK Register: Veteran climate scientist says 'lock up the oil men' - June 23, 2008 & UK Guardian: NASA scientist calls for putting oil firm chiefs on trial for 'high crimes against humanity' for spreading doubt about man-made global warming - June 23, 2008 ]

Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,” he added.

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote of his career. “This required a thorough understanding of the state of the science. I have kept up with climate science since retiring by reading books and journal articles,” Theon added. (LINK) Theon also co-authored the book “Advances in Remote Sensing Retrieval Methods.” [Note: Theon joins many current and former NASA scientists in dissenting from man-made climate fears. A small sampling includes: Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA, Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt, Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA's Apollo 7, Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center, Climatologist Dr. John Christy, Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility]
theon rocks for doing that
much more at link

[Pepsi]

The world's source for global temperature record admits it's lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia - permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/worlds-source-for-global-temperature.html




From the Climategate e-mails Phil Jones instructed fellow scientists to delete incriminating emails subject to FOIA requests:

http://gnosis474.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-is-your-fight.html

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climategate, John Stossel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jWSNBlNPCs)

YouTube - Rich Trumka's "New Economic Order" Speech - Dissected - Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKG8yPkaLNM)

YouTube - Rich Trumka's "New Economic Order" Speech - Dissected - Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd-9pga6BCY)

YouTube - Ice Break: Top scientist resigns over 'Climate Hoax' scandal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o83XMMl9Yzc)

YouTube - Jon Stewart Talks Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - FoxNews - Climategate Provides Vindication for Inhofe on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2JLqXS7-Ig)

YouTube - ABC News This Week - Copenhagen and Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elFgQJaExGU)

YouTube - Sen. Boxer's First Remarks on Climategate - We May Or May Not Have Hearings on Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBtN8i8Gz_o)

YouTube - Inhofe Raises Climategate at Senate Hearing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT8A-MZK7Hc)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Sen. Inhofe To Investigate ClimateGate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIT8xJKaAS4)

YouTube - ClimateGate on Glen Beck 12-1-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guBMgigjXYk)

YouTube - Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwM_B4-5gaE)

YouTube - Cavuto - "ClimateGate" Rocking The New World Order (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn6pg1xZCyY)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Rep. Miller on ClimateGate and Cap and Trade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pRuhnFjas)

YouTube - Climate-Gate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upkO0j3fN9A)

[__27__]

YouTube - Jon Stewart Talks Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8)

Jon Stewart is a funny funny man. I only wish he would add his humor to all news equally without putting his political slant on it, because I LOVE his humor but find myself avoiding his show because I don't want to be beat over the head with his politics.

"Why would you throw out raw data from the 80's? I still have Penthouse's from the 70's!" :D

[Pepsi]

Climategate Crooks Recast Themselves As The Victims

http://www.infowars.com/climategate-crooks-recast-themselves-as-the-victims/


Barbara Boxer slips General Electric payoff into Cap-and-Trade Climate Bill

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/barbara-boxer-slips-general-electric-payoff-into-cap-and-trade

[awake]

500 ' Scientists' from Canada have all signed a joint statement endorsing man made climate change and government intervention. Looking at the names and titles there was not one person who was not directly drawing on the taxpayer or indirectly doing so. It is not any surprise that they all support it, their current and future positions depend on environmental state welfareism. The state offers protection in the form of security and generous over market wages; they repay the favor in direct obedience to political agendas when the time is ripe.

[devil21]

Starting to smell blood in the water...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/



Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch

Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. Photo: JOSE MENDEZ

Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?
From the Washington Post:

“Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference,” notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote “Our Choice,” his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities.

“Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of Our Choice and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack.”

Wait, what? How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion says it all, too: 5,999 Danish kroners is equivalent to $1,209.

“If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199-1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit,” the practical Danes advise. “There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view.”

Yah, such a deal.

[tpreitzel]

Just like Dick Cheney's association with 9/11, Al Gore's association with the idea of man-made "global warming" demands inquiry from both governmental and independent sources. Gore is blatantly complicit in promoting this fraud. Neither man should be free.

[tremendoustie]

Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president?

Yep, two presidents actually. If people want to meet politicians they should move to NH, it's cheaper and you don't have to subsidize wacky science and wannabe tyrants :p

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Fred Singer on Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db89aUedJVw)

YouTube - ClimateGate - Are Climate Scientists afraid of peer review (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEw-DmukwRs)

YouTube - ClimateGate - Is Global Warming driven by science or ideology? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0QnrCUbBYE)

YouTube - Day 13 of Network Climategate Cover-Up: The Media EXPOSED (...Again) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvbHFqIOK-w)

YouTube - Sen. Boxer: You call it Climategate — I Call it E-Mail-Theft-Gate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVhXVQMWoQc)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Ranking Member Sensenbrenner questions Dr. Holdren about Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHZ4vvBe6Ws)

YouTube - Full Inhofe-EPA Jackson Exchange on Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9DT7PbG6S8)

YouTube - CLIMATEGATE 12-2-2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V39tXrH9IYg)

YouTube - Fox & Friends mention Climategate finally! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI8m5HpZ8Ck)

YouTube - Climate-Gate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfW41BcrPzM)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climategate The Backstory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW-JIYG8lIo)

YouTube - AIM: DC Conversations - Sen. James Inhofe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRGS8pZNRRA)

YouTube - Climategate Irish Skeptic suffers huge shock.mov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPYzk4qyzvo)

YouTube - Obama Administration Dismisses Climategate, Vows to Press Forward With Endangerment Finding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMmzTohxefw)

[Paul Revered]

Here is a nice search tool: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I found a nice list here: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/some-summaries-of-the-cru-emails

* Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!

* Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)

* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)

* Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"…to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

* Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

* Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

* Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)

* Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)

* Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

* Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)

* Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

* Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

* Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

* Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

* Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

* Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)

* Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

* Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

* Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

* Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

* Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

* Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

* Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

* Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]

* Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

* Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

* Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

* Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

* Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

* Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

* Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

* Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

* Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

* Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

* Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

* Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

* Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

* Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I’m not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

* Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

[Pepsi]

bump

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Hannity - Chris Horner - ClimateGate (12.3.09) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwzlYEYeFok)

YouTube - Climate Gate on CTV News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV3uXEywDI4)

YouTube - Rex Murphy on Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am3-HpSnE9Y)

YouTube - Climategate : Fudging the numbers / data (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_buKNBrpcM)

YouTube - Richard Lindzen Question & Answer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmQtnZXxE2I)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Quadruple Threat / ClimateGate Analyzed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3pjfyFjmkc)

YouTube - Climategate: Fraser Nelson takes on Bob Ward, Sky News 4th Dec 2009 part one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1DVj3r1Hg)

YouTube - Fox News - Climategate Reaches NASA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8eSPmAu3Jo)

YouTube - Morning Joe Cointinues To White Wash Climategate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QBpwZ5ZtCw)

YouTube - NYT's Friedman on ClimateGate: Global Warming Action Necessary, No Matter Risk or Cost (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maG76tLMMvg)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - CNN Two Weeks Late in Reporting on Climategate 12-4-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M7zqof5KYI)

YouTube - CLIMATEGATE-PAIR OF GATE-KEEPERS DEBATE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjpVLTjVxW0)

[ItsTime]

Now the global warming people are taking up the same arguments that Christians take.

"Well what happens if God is real?"

"Well what happens if global warming is real?"

Same old BS.

[Paul Revered]

Now the global warming people are taking up the same arguments that Christians take.

"Well what happens if God is real?"

"Well what happens if global warming is real?"

Same old BS.Google "Pascal's Wager'. Now I'm a devoted Christian; but most of the people that I find myself in debates with are Atheists, and Agnostics. Many Communists are. These folks generally don't want anything to do with Christian ideals; nor do they generally want to be accused of thinking like one. I used to get the Pascal argument from them on a regular basis regarding AGW; but I only had to ask "Pacal's Wager?" once; and I never heard that argument again. LOL Think man! Don't let them get you angry. When you are angry, you stop thinking clearly. You can probably adapt my technique to your situation; and achieve effective results.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Now the global warming people are taking up the same arguments that Christians take.

"Well what happens if God is real?"

"Well what happens if global warming is real?"

Same old BS.

global warming is real, but just being over-exaggerated with piles of lies and being used to profit from.

[InterestedParticipant]

To summarize, based upon my research, and my own analysis, it is my assessment that the purpose of ClimateGate is as follows:

To cover up the fact that the Green Economy (ie "economy based upon CO2 offsets/taxation") is already in place, with the infrastructure established, with industry already online with new products and marketing campaigns, and with the relevant treaties/agreements already signed.
To create a meaningless dialectic that the LEFT and RIGHT can fight over, specifically, the validity of the "science," the content of the emails that were "hacked," and the attempt to manipulate "truth" and "scientific fact." (PS. We are Change is just one of the manufactured organizations pushing the anti-these part of the dialectic).
To cover up the fact that virtually all "science" is now controlled, and therefore that there is no independent research or science anymore.
To manufacture the appearance that the public is somehow part of the decision process with respect to Global Warming and the Green Economy, and that this process is still ongoing and the end goals undetermined.
To create the illusion that crises and scandal are still "investigated," therefore leading the public to believe that law, order and some form of morality still exist in this Geo-Capitalist system.
To crush the Global Warming dissenters psychologically when Obama, the Underwear Model, travel to Copenhagen to sign-off on the fictitious treaties anyway, ignoring and disregarding the concerns of those that represent the Global Warming anti-thesis.


This hypothesis is based upon my study of Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkmeir, Baudrillard, Ellul and numerous publications from the US Military and their funded think tanks.

[devil21]

Would you care to link us to this research you've been studying or should we just take your word for it?

[tangent4ronpaul]

The UK is going to completely start over and re-analyze their data. It will take 3 years...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/

Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch
3 12 2009

It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.

From Berlingske: Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15

Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. Photo: JOSE MENDEZ

Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?

w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-t

[ramallamamama]

To summarize, based upon my research, and my own analysis, it is my assessment that the purpose of ClimateGate is as follows:

* To cover up the fact that the Green Economy (ie "economy based upon CO2 offsets/taxation") is already in place, with the infrastructure established, with industry already online with new products and marketing campaigns, and with the relevant treaties/agreements already signed.
* To create a meaningless dialectic that the LEFT and RIGHT can fight over, specifically, the validity of the "science," the content of the emails that were "hacked," and the attempt to manipulate "truth" and "scientific fact." (PS. We are Change is just one of the manufactured organizations pushing the anti-these part of the dialectic).
* To cover up the fact that virtually all "science" is now controlled, and therefore that there is no independent research or science anymore.
* To manufacture the appearance that the public is somehow part of the decision process with respect to Global Warming and the Green Economy, and that this process is still ongoing and the end goals undetermined.
* To create the illusion that crises and scandal are still "investigated," therefore leading the public to believe that law, order and some form of morality still exist in this Geo-Capitalist system.
* To crush the Global Warming dissenters psychologically when Obama, the Underwear Model, travel to Copenhagen to sign-off on the fictitious treaties anyway, ignoring and disregarding the concerns of those that represent the Global Warming anti-thesis.


This hypothesis is based upon my study of Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkmeir, Baudrillard, Ellul and numerous publications from the US Military and their funded think tanks.

I saved an image of this post for future posting of IP pwnage.

[Dieseler]

To summarize, based upon my research, and my own analysis, it is my assessment that the purpose of ClimateGate is as follows:

To cover up the fact that the Green Economy (ie "economy based upon CO2 offsets/taxation") is already in place, with the infrastructure established, with industry already online with new products and marketing campaigns, and with the relevant treaties/agreements already signed.
To create a meaningless dialectic that the LEFT and RIGHT can fight over, specifically, the validity of the "science," the content of the emails that were "hacked," and the attempt to manipulate "truth" and "scientific fact." (PS. We are Change is just one of the manufactured organizations pushing the anti-these part of the dialectic).
To cover up the fact that virtually all "science" is now controlled, and therefore that there is no independent research or science anymore.
To manufacture the appearance that the public is somehow part of the decision process with respect to Global Warming and the Green Economy, and that this process is still ongoing and the end goals undetermined.
To create the illusion that crises and scandal are still "investigated," therefore leading the public to believe that law, order and some form of morality still exist in this Geo-Capitalist system.
To crush the Global Warming dissenters psychologically when Obama, the Underwear Model, travel to Copenhagen to sign-off on the fictitious treaties anyway, ignoring and disregarding the concerns of those that represent the Global Warming anti-thesis.


This hypothesis is based upon my study of Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkmeir, Baudrillard, Ellul and numerous publications from the US Military and their funded think tanks.

Damn I hope you are wrong but I can't argue with your reasoning.
I can't say it as well but that's about what I've been thinking also as in it's already a done deal.
:mad:

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/marooned-500x374.jpg

[InterestedParticipant]

The UK is going to completely start over and re-analyze their data. It will take 3 years...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/gore-cancels-on-copenhagen-lecture-leaves-ticketholders-in-a-lurch/

Gore cancels on Copenhagen lecture – leaves ticketholders in a lurch
3 12 2009

It seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. When Al baby pulls the plug, you know it’s hosed.

From Berlingske: Al Gore cancels lecture during COP15

Former U.S. vice president has canceled his event, more than 3,000 Danes have purchased a ticket. Photo: JOSE MENDEZ

Looks like they will get a refund though. Might be worth more as a collectors item in ten years though.

I wonder how many people have shelled out $1200 to shake Al’s hand? Maybe not enough and he couldn’t cover the expenses for his private jet?

w00t!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-t
They're just add drama to the show. Giving us a climax before they tell us the "good" news. Wonder which former Hollywood producer is producing this episode?

[parocks]

I think you're referring to Horkheimer. If Obama signs the treaty, doesn't it still have to be ratified by the Senate?


To summarize, based upon my research, and my own analysis, it is my assessment that the purpose of ClimateGate is as follows:

To cover up the fact that the Green Economy (ie "economy based upon CO2 offsets/taxation") is already in place, with the infrastructure established, with industry already online with new products and marketing campaigns, and with the relevant treaties/agreements already signed.
To create a meaningless dialectic that the LEFT and RIGHT can fight over, specifically, the validity of the "science," the content of the emails that were "hacked," and the attempt to manipulate "truth" and "scientific fact." (PS. We are Change is just one of the manufactured organizations pushing the anti-these part of the dialectic).
To cover up the fact that virtually all "science" is now controlled, and therefore that there is no independent research or science anymore.
To manufacture the appearance that the public is somehow part of the decision process with respect to Global Warming and the Green Economy, and that this process is still ongoing and the end goals undetermined.
To create the illusion that crises and scandal are still "investigated," therefore leading the public to believe that law, order and some form of morality still exist in this Geo-Capitalist system.
To crush the Global Warming dissenters psychologically when Obama, the Underwear Model, travel to Copenhagen to sign-off on the fictitious treaties anyway, ignoring and disregarding the concerns of those that represent the Global Warming anti-thesis.


This hypothesis is based upon my study of Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkmeir, Baudrillard, Ellul and numerous publications from the US Military and their funded think tanks.

[tangent4ronpaul]

They're just add drama to the show. Giving us a climax before they tell us the "good" news. Wonder which former Hollywood producer is producing this episode?

WAG THE DOG!!!!

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

I think you're referring to Horkheimer. If Obama signs the treaty, doesn't it still have to be ratified by the Senate?

YES - and it won't be!

-t

[parocks]

YES - and it won't be!

-t

That's what I thought. Even if Obama doesn't see the significance of Climategate, or is intentionally ignoring it (he must really not want to win in 2012), there have got to be a good number of Senators who are not interested in doing yet another thing that their constituents do not want.

[InterestedParticipant]

That's what I thought. Even if Obama doesn't see the significance of Climategate, or is intentionally ignoring it (he must really not want to win in 2012), there have got to be a good number of Senators who are not interested in doing yet another thing that their constituents do not want.
The Senate is irrelevant. The instruments of a Green Economy and Global Taxation based upon Carbon Credits is already in place. For example, in just one case, they can simply access a carbon tax on wholesale goods imported into the USA, effectively charging Americans a VAT on all imported products and services.

And as far as Obama goes, I think he's just America's Gorbachev, so he'll do a similar Perestroika noise dive before 2012, just like we saw at the Kremlin in 1989, effectively neutering America's sovereignty anyway, or what's left of it. At least, this is my estimation given my current vantage point.

[Carson]

This was a entry in a fark Thanksgiving hand card contest.

http://photos.imageevent.com/stokeybob/thenewera/globalwarmingturkeyrippedofffromRockIsDead.jpg

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Climategate Hits Hollywood Should the Academy Rescind Gore's Oscar (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUcZ7NvuygY)

YouTube - Climategate meets Arseholegate.mov (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEGBgHxNTQ)

YouTube - Journal Editorial Report: Climategate Crack-Up - 12/05/09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmDvV6yLRlc)

YouTube - Climate Gate Protest Hanford CA. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yOLvi-YpZw)

YouTube - Sad Slide of Kieth Obermann - calls ClimateGate a 'made up' Fox News Story. (ClimateGate) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvINc9TA-VA)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - BBC Exposes Global Warming Computer Programming Code (ClimateGate): 'Fudge Factor' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOsLbsxOXPs)

YouTube - BBC Look East First Capital Railway hope & Climate Gate leaked Emails + Soldiers Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQZtA8Hmf_I)

YouTube - Climategate UN Eugenics Crime Syndicate Exposed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XFIggNk-gI)

YouTube - 12 Days of ClimateGate and Network News Programs Are Still Ignoring the Scandal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1UucUa8Cw0)

YouTube - Cold wars: Antarctica cooling, not melting under Ozone Hole shield? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRtYZEracac)

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Lord Monckton: Global Warming big scientific fad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto)

YouTube - 'Climategate' shadow looms over Copenhagen summit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8UdzHi5FIE)

YouTube - Saudis at COP15: 'Climategate' shakes trust in scientists, independent inquiry needed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAKmeblZVR4)

YouTube - Alex Jones: Hookers descend on Copenhagen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Az05gIzEYM)

[revolutionary8]

Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak
712 2009

This lends cred to WUWT’s previous analysis done by our own Charles the moderator: The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation,

Climate-Gate: Leaked

by Lance Levsen, Network Analyst – courtesy of Small Dead Animals




Introduction

Some time starting in mid November 2009, ten million teletypes all started their deet-ditta-dot chatter reeling off the following headline: “Hackers broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit….”

I hate that. It annoys me because just like everything else about climate-gate it’s been ‘value-added’; simplified and distilled. The contents of FOIA2009.zip demand more attention to this detail and as someone once heard Professor Jones mutter darkly, “The devil is in the details…so average it out monthly using TMax!”

The details of the files tell a story that FOIA2009.zip was compiled internally and most likely released by an internal source.

The contents of the zip file hold one top-level directory,
./FOIA
. Inside that it is broken into two main directories,
./mail
and
./documents
. Inside
./mail
are 1073 text files ordered by date. The files are named in order with increasing but not sequential numbers. Each file holds the body and only the body of an email.
more at link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/comprhensive-network-analysis-shows-climategate-likely-to-be-a-leak/#more-13821

[awake]

After watching the following video I must admit that it is a pretty strong case for a 50% chance of a scattered climate apocalypse followed by periods of rain and stupidity . We need more propaganda like this, it is great for scaring the S@*T out of people and herding the sheep in to the pen.

The future of humanity is in the hands of people who eat this stuff up, the rest of us will get camped and stomped for being book learned.

YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4&feature=player_embedded#)

[revolutionary8]

After watching the following video I must admit that it is a pretty strong case for a 50% chance of a scattered climate apocalypse followed by periods of rain and stupidity . We need more propaganda like this, it is great for scaring the S@*T out of people and herding the sheep in to the pen.

The future of humanity is in the hands of people who eat this stuff up, the rest of us will get camped and stomped for being book learned.

YouTube - Please help the world - COP15 opening film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4&feature=player_embedded#)

Give that poor little 8 year old girl some Prozacforkids, or Ritalyn. Big Pharma is the only "way". She's doomed- born in debt and "guilty" of exhaling. Symptoms exhibited by this little girl show a tendency to "drift off" or "enter la la land" - (ref: see playing in puddle) - diagnosis: ADHD. Most children do not play in puddles, nor do they drift off, or act hayper, nor do they have what used to be known as "temper tantrums"...

[InterestedParticipant]

Comprehensive network analysis shows Climategate likely to be a leak
ClimateGate = deliberate diversion timed for release as all the World's psychopathic Simulacrum-leaders descend on to Copenhagen to screw Denmark's prostitutes as well as Global Humanity. Too bad the Soylent-Green Economy is already in place, making this Cop15 sham nothing more than an elaborate boondoggle for it's participants.

[TheEvilDetector]

YouTube - Opposition to man-made climate change: We want proof! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEfriG06Xt4)

[InterestedParticipant]

EvilDetector, do you have any idea of the evil behind your AVATAR?

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Copenhagen, Reps. Markey & Inhofe, EPA endangerment findings (part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwzNZNjzCzI)

YouTube - (pt. 2) Copenhagen, Reps. Markey & Inhofe, EPA endangerment findings (part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9pU5xvQfG8)

[Carson]

EvilDetector, do you have any idea of the evil behind your AVATAR?


Give us all a clue.

[pcosmar]

EvilDetector, do you have any idea of the evil behind your AVATAR?
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/logo.cfm

What has all this to do with our symbol? It has everything to do with it. Let us recall the origin of the so-called peace symbol. Satanists are fond of opposites. They reverse graphic designs; create new words by spelling old ones backward; they even play music backward to create eerie sounds and hidden messages. OK, two can play that game. If we turn this symbol upside down, we immediately see a figure of man reaching upward. What a powerful image it is - the upward reach of mankind: reaching up for good over evil; light over darkness, enlightenment over deception; freedom over slavery. I knew immediately it was what I was seeking to symbolize Freedom Force.


Then, much to my dismay, I discovered that the Nazis had used that same symbol (with side lines drawn upward) on their badges. They placed a swastika at the top of the figure, but it was similar to the concept I thought I had invented. Drat! The ideology of freedom is the exact opposite of Nazism, and there was no way I was going to adopt that symbol. But the idea of an upward reach was too good to discard. I began to look for a way to preserve the concept without relying on symbols of Satanism or Communism or Nazism. After experimenting with various lines and angles, the solution suddenly popped onto the page. It was a vertical line for man, a V for the upward reach, and a circle in the middle of the V, which completed the image by putting a head on the shoulders of man. The head, of course, represents the power of reason, and it created a symbol quite different in appearance from all the others.

[Reason]

"Climate-gate" emails controversy examined
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4605

[Bruno]

"Climate-gate" emails controversy examined
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4605

They can't explain the lack of warming, but just know that the earth must still be warming despite the fact that it is cooling as they state? They realize there are many complex mechanisms in nature that affect temperature which we don't understand, but stand fast in their belief that they do understand that CO2 levels alone are responsible for the increase (and/or decrease) in temperatures?

[Pepsi]

finally a reply from one of my Senators.



Thank you for contacting me regarding the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, the 15th Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 15) is scheduled to take place from December 7 - 18, 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark. The purpose of COP 15 is to finalize a legally binding treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions that will take effect at the end of 2012. Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol were completed on December 11, 1997, committing the industrialized nations to specified, legally binding reductions in emissions of six greenhouse gases. Developing nations, led by China and India, refused to accept any emissions cuts, citing a potential threat to their economic growth. As a result of China and India's refusal to sign the Protocol, the U.S. Senate never officially ratified the treaty.

I opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol due to its creation of significant new taxes and an international command-and-control style structure. Such taxes would significantly raise the price of electricity, gasoline, and other forms of energy for all Americans. In addition, the United States would have been forced to concede some measure of sovereignty over U.S. agriculture and forestry policies to the United Nations. The unequal restrictions in the treaty would have forced American companies to move their production facilities to exempted countries. Pursuit of relaxed environmental standards will cause an exodus of American jobs, greatly impacting American workers and many local tax bases.

Recently, a video speech by Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has prompted numerous concerns regarding the upcoming conference. In his speech, Lord Monckton states that the treaty, if signed, would surrender U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, create a new world government, and redistribute American currency as a debt payment for past global emissions. Although this video is alarming, it is important to remember that no international body can force the United States to sign or ratify a global agreement, as any treaty of this nature requires Senate ratification.

Improving air quality is a top priority for the United States, but there is strong disagreement on how to accomplish it. We can develop an approach that recognizes that environmental responsibility and economic growth need not be mutually exclusive. Please rest assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to promote commonsense, realistic goals for improving air quality.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website

[paulitics]

finally a reply from one of my Senators.

Sounds encouraging. Who is the Senator? Dem or Rep?

[purplechoe]

Sounds encouraging. Who is the Senator? Dem or Rep?

I would be shocked :eek: if that was a Dem.

[Pepsi]

I would be shocked :eek: if that was a Dem.

It was Senator Crapo, one my Senators here in Idaho.

[purplechoe]

YouTube - Christopher Horner on Alex Jones Tv 1/4:Insider Exposes Globalists Red Hot Lies on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_cy7v4-9v8)

YouTube - Christopher Horner on Alex Jones Tv 2/4:Insider Exposes Globalists Red Hot Lies on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqzYxmJ5zkc)

YouTube - Christopher Horner on Alex Jones Tv 3/4:Insider Exposes Globalists Red Hot Lies on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1ZR4yjmXpQ)

YouTube - Christopher Horner on Alex Jones Tv 4/4:Insider Exposes Globalists Red Hot Lies on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I0y3jlYjtA)

[InterestedParticipant]

Give us all a clue.


http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/logo.cfm



What has all this to do with our symbol? It has everything to do with it. Let us recall the origin of the so-called peace symbol. Satanists are fond of opposites. They reverse graphic designs; create new words by spelling old ones backward; they even play music backward to create eerie sounds and hidden messages. OK, two can play that game. If we turn this symbol upside down, we immediately see a figure of man reaching upward. What a powerful image it is - the upward reach of mankind: reaching up for good over evil; light over darkness, enlightenment over deception; freedom over slavery. I knew immediately it was what I was seeking to symbolize Freedom Force.


Then, much to my dismay, I discovered that the Nazis had used that same symbol (with side lines drawn upward) on their badges. They placed a swastika at the top of the figure, but it was similar to the concept I thought I had invented. Drat! The ideology of freedom is the exact opposite of Nazism, and there was no way I was going to adopt that symbol. But the idea of an upward reach was too good to discard. I began to look for a way to preserve the concept without relying on symbols of Satanism or Communism or Nazism. After experimenting with various lines and angles, the solution suddenly popped onto the page. It was a vertical line for man, a V for the upward reach, and a circle in the middle of the V, which completed the image by putting a head on the shoulders of man. The head, of course, represents the power of reason, and it created a symbol quite different in appearance from all the others.
This is utter crap from G. Griffin..... sending his "followers" down the road of more magical thinking. If the politicians and establishment figures aren't screwing your brains, then the authorized anti-establishment actors are.

If you want a real clue, read Hegel or Marx, that will send you down a relevant road of understanding. Also, you can start here (http://bit.ly/4NbfSZ) for a preliminary discussion.

[Carson]

Man, I just see a peace sign as that, a peace sign.

That was our definition for it during the Vietnam era.

I see no reason to make it something it's not but if some want to try more power to them. I remember there was some talk of the origin being some convoluted this or that but we grabbed ahold of it and made it ours.

Peace Brother!

[InterestedParticipant]

Man, I just see a peace sign as that, a peace sign.
This is a testimony to the power of conditioning.

Images can have multiples meanings. With alternate meanings for those with alternate conditioning. I'm merely pointing out the image meaning that is NOT presented to the public, but that is represented by the system designers and presented to various insiders.

For insiders, the public is only granted "peace" if they stay contained within the system designer's circle of control and remain subjected to Marx's bastardization of the Hegelian dialectic.

[Mini-Me]

This is a testimony to the power of conditioning.

Images can have multiples meanings. With alternate meanings for those with alternate conditioning. I'm merely pointing out the image meaning that is NOT presented to the public, but that is represented by the system designers and presented to various insiders.

For insiders, the public is only granted "peace" if they stay contained within the system designer's circle of control and remain subjected to Marx's bastardization of the Hegelian dialectic.

Even if this is true, and the designers of the "peace" sign, etc. had this esoteric symbolism in mind, why should ordinary people like us care? Unless you personally believe symbols have some kind of occult power over us when we fail to grasp their intended meaning, I don't really see it as all that important if common symbols are mocking us with "inside jokes" of TPTB. Do you believe that people understand their true meaning subliminally, but not consciously, and are so conditioned into thinking inside the box? Otherwise, the way I see it, it doesn't matter what symbols mean to "them," so long as they have a commonly recognized meaning to us. In other words, unless there's a specific reason to be concerned about a symbol's effect on our thinking, why not just say, "Screw what it means to them. It just means 'peace' to us."?

I suppose rejecting their symbol and creating our own would send a message to them that we will not be manipulated...but for that matter, understanding theirs and using it anyway will cause them to underestimate our understanding and possibly slip up due to overconfidence (and if they recognize that we understand the symbol but continue to use it anyway, it sends the message that we just don't give a damn what they think). Granted, obviously evil symbols with a singular evil meaning should be shunned, but mainly because they don't have a positive meaning for us whatsoever.

[InterestedParticipant]

Even if this is true, and the designers of the "peace" sign, etc. had this esoteric symbolism in mind, why should ordinary people like us care?
Because it provides further insight and understanding into the social planners thinking and system design. When we buy-into their images, without understanding their full meaning, we are further deceived. When we discuss the esoteric, we are better prepared to make informed choices about the paths that we take and the society that we live in.

For example, the peace sign, in its current form, is an excellent articulation of how Marx manipulated Hegel's work on the dialectic. If we can understand this, then we can defend against its desired impact. If we are unaware, then we can easily become victimized. It is these subtle understandings that can differentiate freedom from slavery.

[Mini-Me]

Because it provides further insight and understanding into the social planners thinking and system design. When we buy-into their images, without understanding their full meaning, we are further deceived. When we discuss the esoteric, we are better prepared to make informed choices about the paths that we take and the society that we live in.

For example, the peace sign, in its current form, is an excellent articulation of how Marx manipulated Hegel's work on the dialectic. If we can understand this, then we can defend against its desired impact. If we are unaware, then we can easily become victimized. It is these subtle understandings that can differentiate freedom from slavery.

I bolded a sentence above. In your opinion, what is the desired impact of the peace symbol? I guess I'm still not seeing how we can be impacted by the hidden meaning of a symbol, if that meaning in fact remains hidden to us (because we take the symbol at face value as a sign of peace).

[InterestedParticipant]

I bolded a sentence above. In your opinion, what is the desired impact of the peace symbol? I guess I'm still not seeing how we can be impacted by the hidden meaning of a symbol, if that meaning in fact remains hidden to us (because we take the symbol at face value as a sign of peace).
The image represents Marx's system of production and consumption (a simulacrum that marginalizes all other human activity and promotes activity that can be rationalized and therefore centrally controlled) and a modified version of Hegel's dialectic (which is used to implement plans through a series of point counter-point arguments in society via the media and instruments such as Adorno's victim groups). Hence, the image represents a particular path toward peace..... peace that can only be achieved through a specific system of control.

Further, images within society have an enormous impact on perception. When our view of images expand and change, so does our perception of society. In this case, the public views the peace sign with one understanding while the elite view it with an alternative understanding. Here, the two vastly different perceptions of the image is a metric that affirms the effectiveness of existing propaganda techniques in the public, maintaining confidence across social planners who must be constantly reassured that the mass-man remains under the necessary illusions.

Most importantly, the public is primarily impacted through deception (ie by NOT seeing or understanding the alternative meanings of images). Therefore, we are deceived into making decisions based upon one construct of understanding, when this construct is in-reality severely limited. It is comparable to people supporting CO2 Offsets (ie taxes) because they think CO2 is dangerous to the environment and will cause sea level rise in the future. But if they understood the real dialectic, they would see that man-made global warming is nothing more than a ruse that has been designed to create a dialectic of man against the planet, where humanity is the enemy of man. If people understood that they were supporting a system of control over humanity, they might make very different choices.

So, it's all about seeing through the deception of the system and the deception of the images within the system that are relied upon to create limited or false perceptions. When we see through the deception, we will make appropriate decision.

[TheEvilDetector]

The image represents Marx's system of production and consumption (a simulacrum that marginalizes all other human activity and promotes activity that can be rationalized and therefore centrally controlled) and a modified version of Hegel's dialectic (which is used to implement plans through a series of point counter-point arguments in society via the media and instruments such as Adorno's victim groups). Hence, the image represents a particular path toward peace..... peace that can only be achieved through a specific system of control.

Further, images within society have an enormous impact on perception. When our view of images expand and change, so does our perception of society. In this case, the public views the peace sign with one understanding while the elite view it with an alternative understanding. Here, the two vastly different perceptions of the image is a metric that affirms the effectiveness of existing propaganda techniques in the public, maintaining confidence across social planners who must be constantly reassured that the mass-man remains under the necessary illusions.

Most importantly, the public is primarily impacted through deception (ie by NOT seeing or understanding the alternative meanings of images). Therefore, we are deceived into making decisions based upon one construct of understanding, when this construct is in-reality severely limited. It is comparable to people supporting CO2 Offsets (ie taxes) because they think CO2 is dangerous to the environment and will cause sea level rise in the future. But if they understood the real dialectic, they would see that man-made global warming is nothing more than a ruse that has been designed to create a dialectic of man against the planet, where humanity is the enemy of man. If people understood that they were supporting a system of control over humanity, they might make very different choices.

So, it's all about seeing through the deception of the system and the deception of the images within the system that are relied upon to create limited or false perceptions. When we see through the deception, we will make appropriate decision.

Interesting Viewpoint. Thank you for your contribution. I like the Avatar, so I'm going to stick with it.

Note: Given your ultra analytical approach, I wonder if the Nazi's happened to use the plus sign for their emblem, would you then have difficulty concentrating in your maths class?

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/

"The solution is simple. It is to take back control of the power centers of society, one-by-one, just the way they were captured in the first place. Replace the collectivists with people who have no personal agendas except to defend freedom. This will unleash the vast human potential for prosperity and happiness that can be realized only in the absence of government oppression. However, to reach that goal, it will be necessary for those who cherish freedom to do more than complain and far more than just casting a vote every few years. They must reach for power. That is the reason for the motto of Freedom Force: Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt, which is Latin for “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

The Freedom Force strategy can be summarized as:
Don't fight city hall when you can BE city hall.
"

This philosophy sounds about right to me.

To me personally, the symbol symbolises effort to regain personal freedom, nothing more.

[Mini-Me]

It's Marx's system of production and consumption... a simulacrum that marginalizes all other human activity and promotes activity that can be rationalized and therefore centrally controlled.

It's not that we're impacted by alternative meaning of an image, it is that the image represents aspects of a system of control that we either do not see or do not understand. When we see the system in its totality, we see aspects of images that we did not see before. And as images have an enormous impact on perception, we see how our previously limited view of pop images has limited our perception and muted our ability to make informed choices.

In short, we are being deceived into making decisions based upon one construct of understanding, when this construct is in-reality severely limited.

It is comparable to people supporting CO2 Offsets (ie taxes) because they think CO2 is dangerous to the environment and will cause sea level rise in the future. But if they understood the real dialectic, they would see that man-made global warming is nothing more than a ruse that has been designed to create a dialectic of man against the planet, where humanity is the enemy of man. If people understood that they were supporting a system of control over humanity, they might make very different choices.

So, it's all about seeing through the deception of the system and the deception of the images within the system that are relied upon to create limited or false perceptions.

The peace symbol is just an example that I pointed out in this thread because a forum poster is using it as their avatar.

I'm still not getting why face value acceptance of a symbol affects a person's overall worldview though.* I mean, by the time you're even able to deconstruct a symbol like this and recognize it as a visual representation of a specific controlled dialectic, wouldn't you necessarily have to have already recognized the dialectic it's meant to represent anyway? By that point, wouldn't understanding the symbol itself be little more than an academic curiosity, considering you already understand the false dilemmas involved with the much more important underlying public policy issue?

*Then again, maybe I do understand it in some situations, if we're just skipping a step. Is what you're saying related to identity politics? For instance, greenies personally identify with all sorts of "green" symbols and blindly support pretty much any policy/organization that invokes them without really analyzing what they're really supporting. In this kind of situation, personal identification with a symbol will limit a person's range of thought.

Even in this situation though, I still think my above point is relevant (unless I'm still missing the point entirely): By the time you've "freed your mind" enough to recognize the deceptive function of the symbol, you must have already recognized the dialectic itself anyway (and its controlling purpose), so understanding the esoteric symbology that went into the visual image becomes a merely academic curiosity. Am I still missing something?

[InterestedParticipant]

Interesting Viewpoint. Thank you for your contribution. I like the Avatar, so I'm going to stick with it.
Do you wear you "jeans" around your knees as well? Of course, this would mean you're not wearing a belt.

And how about your sneakers... I bet you've removed the laces.


The imagery you're promulgating isn't really any different. But hey, it's a free country.

[InterestedParticipant]

I'm still not getting why face value acceptance of a symbol affects a person's overall worldview though.* I mean, by the time you're even able to deconstruct a symbol like this and recognize it as a visual representation of a specific controlled dialectic, wouldn't you necessarily have to have already recognized the dialectic it's meant to represent anyway? By that point, wouldn't understanding the symbol itself be little more than an academic curiosity, considering you already understand the false dilemmas involved with the much more important underlying public policy issue?

*Then again, maybe I do understand it in some situations, if we're just skipping a step. Is what you're saying related to identity politics? For instance, greenies personally identify with all sorts of "green" symbols and blindly support pretty much any policy/organization that invokes them without really analyzing what they're really supporting. In this kind of situation, personal identification with a symbol will limit a person's range of thought.

Even in this situation though, I still think my above point is relevant (unless I'm still missing the point entirely): By the time you've "freed your mind" enough to recognize the deceptive function of the symbol, you must have already recognized the dialectic itself anyway (and its controlling purpose), so understanding the esoteric symbology that went into the visual image becomes a merely academic curiosity. Am I still missing something?
Perhaps the point is that people should understand what they are buying in to before they hit the purchase button. What was that concept from the Ten Commandments... it went something like Idolatry is a Sin.... maybe that concept actually has some merit.

Also, I must have been still editing my post when you hit the 'quote' button. Below is my revised post, which was posted prior to your reply.


The image represents Marx's system of production and consumption (a simulacrum that marginalizes all other human activity and promotes activity that can be rationalized and therefore centrally controlled) and a modified version of Hegel's dialectic (which is used to implement plans through a series of point counter-point arguments in society via the media and instruments such as Adorno's victim groups). Hence, the image represents a particular path toward peace..... peace that can only be achieved through a specific system of control.

Further, images within society have an enormous impact on perception. When our view of images expand and change, so does our perception of society. In this case, the public views the peace sign with one understanding while the elite view it with an alternative understanding. Here, the two vastly different perceptions of the image is a metric that affirms the effectiveness of existing propaganda techniques in the public, maintaining confidence across social planners who must be constantly reassured that the mass-man remains under the necessary illusions.

Most importantly, the public is primarily impacted through deception (ie by NOT seeing or understanding the alternative meanings of images). Therefore, we are deceived into making decisions based upon one construct of understanding, when this construct is in-reality severely limited. It is comparable to people supporting CO2 Offsets (ie taxes) because they think CO2 is dangerous to the environment and will cause sea level rise in the future. But if they understood the real dialectic, they would see that man-made global warming is nothing more than a ruse that has been designed to create a dialectic of man against the planet, where humanity is the enemy of man. If people understood that they were supporting a system of control over humanity, they might make very different choices.

So, it's all about seeing through the deception of the system and the deception of the images within the system that are relied upon to create limited or false perceptions. When we see through the deception, we will make appropriate decision.

[InterestedParticipant]

One may want to refer to "The System of Objects (http://www.amazon.com/System-Objects-Radical-Thinkers/dp/1844670538)" by Jean Baudrillard...


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WK9NNPX6L._SL500_AA240_.jpg

The book discusses the thesis of consumer society from a neo-Marxist perspective, relying on both Lacanian psychoanalysis and Saussurean structuralism to develop his main theme, which is that consumption has become the chief basis of the social order. Consumer objects structure behavior through a linguistic sign function. Advertising has taken over "the moral responsibility for all of society and replace[d] a puritan morality with a hedonistic morality of pure satisfaction, like a new state of nature at the heart of hypercivilization," (12-3). The freedoms and liberties we have in this new hypercivilization are completely circumscribed by the commodity system: "'Free to be oneself' in fact means: free to project one's desires onto produced goods. 'Free to enjoy life' means: free to regress and be irrational, and thus adapt a certain social organization of production. [This is] the ultimate in morality, since the consumer is simultaneously reconciled with himself and with the group. He becomes the perfect social being," (13). Buying commodities is a preconditioned activity which takes place at the intersection of two systems: that of the individual, which is fluid and disconnected, and that of the relations of production, which is codified, continuous and integrated. "This is not interaction but rather the forced integration of the system of needs within the system of products," (14). The relationship is similar to the Saussurean system of langue and parole : the object of consumption is a particular articulation (parole) of a set of expressions that preexist the commodity (langue) . But this is not a language: "Here we have the tower of Babel: each item speaks its own idiom ... This immense paradigm lacks a true syntax," (15); it is "a system of classification, and not a language," (16). "Needs" as such are created by the objects of consumption: "objects are categories of objects which quite tyrannically induce categories of persons. They undertake the policing of social meanings, and the significations they engender are controlled," (16-7). Objects signify social standing, and in consumer society they replace all other means of hierarchical societal division -- e.g. race, gender, class. People are no longer ranked according to these obsolete mechanisms but by the commodities they own -- a universal code of recognition tells us that the person with the Rolex watch is higher on the hierarchy. This does not mean liberation from exploitation; "On the contrary, it appears that the constraint of a single referent only acts to exacerbate the desire for discrimination ... we can observe the unfolding of an always renewed obsession of hierarchy and distinction," (20). Consumption is a "systematic act of the manipulation of signs" (22) that signifies social status through difference -- buying a Rolex means not buying a Seiko. The object itself is not consumed but rather the idea of a relation between objects. Also, technological imperatives undermine the Marxian problematic of revolution because change is integral to the system and its very reproduction: "Everything is in motion, everything is changing, everything is being transformed and yet nothing changes. Such a society, thrown into technological progress, accomplishes all possible revolutions but these are revolutions upon itself. Its growing productivity does not lead to any structural change."[7]

http://www.csun.edu/~hfspc002/baud/

[TheEvilDetector]

Do you wear you "jeans" around your knees as well? Of course, this would mean you're not wearing a belt.

And how about your sneakers... I bet you've removed the laces.


The imagery you're promulgating isn't really any different. But hey, it's a free country.

Non sequitur.

[InterestedParticipant]

Non sequitur.
Only to those who pretend to fight for freedom while simultaneously promulgating the system of enslavement.

Either you have no idea what you are doing, or you are doing it deliberately. Which is it?

[Carson]

It is not hard to tell just who is trying to trap people into their own idea of where the boundaries are.


"Peace" "Freedom"

Who's to define the definition OR the boundaries except the individual themselves.

Then when you think you've got them nailed down they could up and change them for themselves.

[TheEvilDetector]

Only to those who pretend to fight for freedom while simultaneously promulgating the system of enslavement.

Either you have no idea what you are doing, or you are doing it deliberately. Which is it?

Strawman much?

"Evolution says that we descended from the apes. But I've never heard of any chimpanzees or gorillas having human babies. If it had ever happened, the newspapers would have reported it. So that just proves that this whole evolution theory is wrong. Why do they keep teaching evolution, when this just shows how easy it is to prove that it is wrong ?"

http://mason.gmu.edu/~cmcgloth/portfolio/fallacies/strawman.html

[InterestedParticipant]

Here is an intro into why images are so important in a Marx designed consumer society, and how consumption of images are constructed... so one might ask themselves what is the symbollic and sign value of an object that depicts the Marxist consumer prison that we live in, and why would someone who presents themselves as a lover of liberty assign this object to themselves?

The object value system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

In his early books, such as The System of Objects, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, and The Consumer Society, Baudrillard's main focus is upon consumerism, and how different objects are consumed in different ways. At this time Baudrillard's political outlook was loosely associated with Marxism (and situationism), but in these books he differed from Marx in one significant way. For Baudrillard, it was consumption, rather than production, which was the main drive in capitalist society.

Baudrillard came to this conclusion by criticizing Marx's concept of "use value." Baudrillard thought that both Marx's and Adam Smith's economic thought accepted the idea of genuine needs relating to genuine uses too easily and too simply. He argued, drawing from Georges Bataille, that needs are constructed, rather than innate. Whereas Marx believed that uses genuinely laid beneath capitalism's "commodity fetishism," Baudrillard thought that all purchases, because they always signify something socially, have their fetishistic side. Objects always, drawing from Roland Barthes, "say something" about their users. And this was, for him, why consumption was and remains more important than production: because the "ideological genesis of needs"[11] precedes the production of goods to meet those needs.

He wrote that there are four ways of an object obtaining value. The four value-making processes are as follows:[12]


The first is the functional value of an object; its instrumental purpose. A pen, for instance, writes; and a refrigerator cools. Marx's "use-value" is very similar to this first type of value.
The second is the exchange value of an object; its economic value. One pen may be worth three pencils; and one refrigerator may be worth the salary earned by three months of work.
The third is the symbolic value of an object; a value that a subject assigns to an object in relation to another subject. A pen might symbolize a student's school graduation gift or a commencement speaker's gift; or a diamond may be a symbol of publicly declared marital love.
The last is the sign value of an object; its value within a system of objects. A particular pen may, whilst having no added functional benefit, signify prestige relative to another pen; a diamond ring may have no function at all, but may suggest particular social values, such as taste or class.


Baudrillard's earlier books were attempts to argue that the first two of these values are not simply associated, but are disrupted by the third and, particularly, the fourth. Later, Baudrillard rejected Marxism totally (The Mirror of Production and Symbolic Exchange and Death). But the focus on the difference between sign value (which relates to commodity exchange) and symbolic value (which relates to Maussian gift exchange) remained in his work up until his death. Indeed it came to play a more and more important role, particularly in his writings on world events.

[TheEvilDetector]

Here is an intro into why images are so important in a Marx designed consumer society, and how consumption of images are constructed... so one might ask themselves what is the symbollic and sign value of an object that depicts the Marxist consumer prison that we live in, and why would someone who presents themselves as a lover of liberty assign this object to themselves?

The object value system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard

In his early books, such as The System of Objects, For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign, and The Consumer Society, Baudrillard's main focus is upon consumerism, and how different objects are consumed in different ways. At this time Baudrillard's political outlook was loosely associated with Marxism (and situationism), but in these books he differed from Marx in one significant way. For Baudrillard, it was consumption, rather than production, which was the main drive in capitalist society.

Baudrillard came to this conclusion by criticizing Marx's concept of "use value." Baudrillard thought that both Marx's and Adam Smith's economic thought accepted the idea of genuine needs relating to genuine uses too easily and too simply. He argued, drawing from Georges Bataille, that needs are constructed, rather than innate. Whereas Marx believed that uses genuinely laid beneath capitalism's "commodity fetishism," Baudrillard thought that all purchases, because they always signify something socially, have their fetishistic side. Objects always, drawing from Roland Barthes, "say something" about their users. And this was, for him, why consumption was and remains more important than production: because the "ideological genesis of needs"[11] precedes the production of goods to meet those needs.

He wrote that there are four ways of an object obtaining value. The four value-making processes are as follows:[12]


The first is the functional value of an object; its instrumental purpose. A pen, for instance, writes; and a refrigerator cools. Marx's "use-value" is very similar to this first type of value.
The second is the exchange value of an object; its economic value. One pen may be worth three pencils; and one refrigerator may be worth the salary earned by three months of work.
The third is the symbolic value of an object; a value that a subject assigns to an object in relation to another subject. A pen might symbolize a student's school graduation gift or a commencement speaker's gift; or a diamond may be a symbol of publicly declared marital love.
The last is the sign value of an object; its value within a system of objects. A particular pen may, whilst having no added functional benefit, signify prestige relative to another pen; a diamond ring may have no function at all, but may suggest particular social values, such as taste or class.


Baudrillard's earlier books were attempts to argue that the first two of these values are not simply associated, but are disrupted by the third and, particularly, the fourth. Later, Baudrillard rejected Marxism totally (The Mirror of Production and Symbolic Exchange and Death). But the focus on the difference between sign value (which relates to commodity exchange) and symbolic value (which relates to Maussian gift exchange) remained in his work up until his death. Indeed it came to play a more and more important role, particularly in his writings on world events.

What is your point ?

We know you don't like my avatar and you have every right not to like it. However, it never bothered anyone else, and even if it did, it would have to begin bothering me before I changed it.

Guess what, my avatar doesn't bother me, even after the deep dissection of object value components that you offered us.

The avatar symbolises struggle for freedom, you can read into it what you like, but that's what it means to me and I have said as much earlier.

If my avatar brings up deeply seated fears or concerns in your mind, I offer you my apologies.

Nothing wrong with being observant (in fact, i.m.o, it is more of a virtue in this day and age than anything else), but I feel you over analyse a tad.

What is also worth noting here, is that the opinions of people (and their worldview) formulated solely based on a picture they represent themselves with, have a fair chance of being erroneous.

It should be obvious to most, that pictures may mean many things to many people.

In addition, some people may put pictures up that reflect the opposite of what they think for entertainment or malicious reasons.

Also, I believe that here more than in any other place, you are likely to find subtleties in people's views which are lacking in the mainstream population.

I think (and believe most would agree) that the mainstream media spits outs pre-packaged world views (which over simplify issues with the broad intent of gathering public support for the ruling class' machinations)
and the general public consumes this without much critical thought, although this seems to be changing (hopefully and thankfully).

[InterestedParticipant]

The avatar symbolises struggle for freedom
No, it symbolizes ignorance (of the public) and control (ala the Marx - Hegel model). If one can't understand this, then how is one ever going to understand the roots and intentions of the Global Warming scam (original purpose of this thread).

When people claim they are awake, I wonder exactly what they are awake to? Seems like nothing more than just a new dream-state to me.

[TheEvilDetector]

no, it symbolizes ignorance (of the public) and control (ala the marx - hegel model).


to you

You still haven't grasped the basic concept that an image may represent different things to different people.

Fundamentally the person looking at the image decides what the image will mean to them.

You are quite convinced that what it symbolises to you, is universal to all, but that is an absurd position to hold.

Take the swastika of a german officer as an example:

To the officer it may symbolise power, pride and goals.
To the concentration camp inmate it symbolises pure evil.

Do you see the point?

In my case, based on what I have read about the organisation where I got this symbol and after having watched Griffin's videos, I'm quite comfortable using it as my avatar, having satisfied myself that what Griffin speaks of is
aligned with my own thinking about personal freedoms.

I'm puzzled though, why you have such an aversion to the symbol, its so poignant that one may be excused for thinking you are on a personal crusade to put FFI into disrepute.

Here is a bit on FFI:

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org

"Freedom Force International is a network of men and women from all parts of the world who are concerned over loss of personal liberty and expansion of government power. They are not mere complainers. They have a plan to do something about it. They also share a common belief in The Creed of Freedom, which is a statement of principles that guide them in their mission to build a better world. "

Here is the creed of freedom:

"THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.
I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.

EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.

PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and that always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state can give us everything we want, it also must be powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, nothing more. That state is best which governs least."

[Carson]

Nice avatar TheEvilDetector.


Reading some of your last post reminded me of the recent uprising in Iran over their elections. Even though we may have differences it seemed easy to connect with the plight of the protesters. There cry was one for basic human morals and an honest accounting in an election.

It connected them with all of the rest of us in the world that seem to have so many problems with basic human morals and getting an honest accounting from their governments.

Do you all remember this;

She was just there watching with her father.


No link I guess the video has been banned here.

[InterestedParticipant]

to you

You still haven't grasped the basic concept that an image may represent different things to different people.

Fundamentally the person looking at the image decides what the image will mean to them.
The system works successfully by deception.

I am illustrating how the deception works, in this case, through images and how controlled opposition implement these images to ensure control.

If one can't see the deception, and understand it, then one will continue to be controlled by it.

Ever think there is a connection between G. Griffin's image and the Nazi's use of similar imagery? Why would this be the case?

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3935/peace6.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6885/frauenhilfsdienstdeutsc.jpg

There's a strong link. The imagery comes from the same root. Do you really think this root represents peace AND democracy?

Serious students may go here (http://wwws.forummotion.com/current-information-operations-io-f1/fuck-the-peace-sign-t13.htm?highlight=fuck) for serious discussion.

[TheEvilDetector]

The system works successfully by deception.

I am illustrating how the deception works, in this case, through images and how controlled opposition implement these images to ensure control.

If one can't see the deception, and understand it, then one will continue to be controlled by it.

Ever think there is a connection between G. Griffin's image and the Nazi's use of similar imagery? Why would this be the case?

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3935/peace6.jpg

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6885/frauenhilfsdienstdeutsc.jpg

There's a strong link. The imagery comes from the same root. Do you really think this root represents peace AND democracy?

Serious students may go here (http://wwws.forummotion.com/current-information-operations-io-f1/fuck-the-peace-sign-t13.htm?highlight=fuck) for serious discussion.

You're entitled to your opinion. (By the way I didn't talk about peace and democracy in my last post, I talked about individual freedom, democracy in its pure form ie. pure majority rule without any checks and boundaries, is an evil institution i.m.o).

You see the plus sign on the side of this tank?

http://02varvara.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/panzer_38t_ausf_s.jpg

Did you have any problems in arithmetic class as a result?

I mean frankly, the Nazis have taken over the plus sign, what are you going to do now?

I don't want you to suffer a seizure next time you verify that you've been given the right change at a supermarket checkout.

How will you ever reconcile the evil the nazis did with the essential mathematical operator to your day to day life. You are in quite a predicament are you not?

My point is that just about any symbol can be linked in some manner to something unwholesome if you spend enough time on it, does that mean, the symbol can no longer be used to signify something else?

Also, just because the symbol shares some similarity with another symbol, at which point do we make the conclusion that it is in fact the same symbol? What if colours are different, or other aspect of the geometry?

Even if all aspects of the symbol are the same, what if the symbol was arrived at by different people independantly?

What if the person who chose a symbol is aware of some linkage to negative aspects, but makes it clear that is not what he intends his incarnation of the symbol to represent.
(details on this have actually been posted, ie. Griffin talking about the very symbol you dislike)

The degree of similarity in itself is a subjective criteria and there are many nuances and I've touched upon some of them.

If we apply your logic of disowning symbols to its ultimate conclusion, we will be left without any means of communication after a time, because every line, shape, colour, word, sentence, digit etc can be interpreted as representing something evil to somebody at sometime at someplace in someway.

Could it be that you are simply reading too much into this?

Maybe you just don't like FFI much.

Fine with me to be honest, you're free to make up your own mind about anything.

PS. Your avatar reminds me of this :

http://www.minifigs.net/webpage/images/city/Shirt_with_6Buttons_Blue_Red_Cap.jpg

But did you know that LEGO is evil? It makes evil creatures:

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/265879094_7182d53d1c_o.jpg
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/265878996_8c8f7e8a5a_o.jpg

Therefore you are evil.

Its really that simple.

[revolutionary8]

In case y'all haven't noticed ya got "cointelpro'd". :D Hijack/divert much IP? :D
Be careful, or ya just might be carrying out the very subversive tactics you are describing to others. (LOOK! OVER THERE! ...meanwhile, back at the ranch...)

Here is some interesting news regarding CLIMATEGATE, the topic of this thread. (I'd request a split, but I am sure the mods have plenty of better things to do, but this thread has gone WAY WAY off topic= in to la la land...

EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate
Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows


With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world's economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal - where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science - would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes.

That's not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, "Science not faked, but not pretty." AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing.

The first scientist quoted in the article, Mark Frankel, is director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AP quotes him as concluding that there is, "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'" While the article mentions that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and some Republican lawmakers are calling for independent investigations, AP doesn't note the views of the scientists they interviewed.

When The Washington Times talked to Mr. Frankel, the scientist gave a quite different impression. The e-mails, he said, are not sufficient to reach any judgment at all on whether the data or science was faked or misleading. "You can't do that on the e-mails alone, you can't do it on the e-mails or the program," he concluded. For that reason, Mr. Frankel supports investigation of East Anglia and related allegations of fraud at Pennsylvania State University.

There's a big difference between saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to determine if falsification of data occurred - and that there should be an investigation - and saying, as AP did: "Science not faked."

Mr. Frankel also believes outsiders to the two schools should be asked to take part. "You should be willing and open to going to outside people to be part of your inquiry," he advised. "If I were Penn State, I would certainly be advising them to be very open to the possibility of bringing in one or two people who have impeccable credentials, well-respected, to join in ...."

Arizona State University professor Dan Sarewitz is quoted by AP as saying, "This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds." However, Mr. Sarewitz wasn't speaking about the validity of the climate science; he was discussing his belief that politics infects how most scientific research is conducted. While AP used the quote to suggest that there was nothing terribly wrong that had been revealed in Climategate, Mr. Sarewitz was trying to issue a warning that politics infects too much science and that reporters, politicians and the public are naive about that reality.

As he told The Washington Times, "When the human underside (of science) gets revealed, then suddenly people are disillusioned and they say, 'Oh, how shocking!' But it's not particularly shocking." Indeed, Mr. Sarewitz suggests that reporters ask scientists about their political views. (For the record, he is a liberal Democrat.) He also is skeptical of the university investigations, particularly if they don't include outsiders. "I think they should have external people [involved in the investigations]. Certainly. ... The challenge here might be, can you find people who are independent but also understand the science well enough to really tell (if there was wrongdoing)?"

The third scientist interviewed by AP, professor Gerald North at Texas A&M University, joined Mr. Frankel and Mr. Sarewitz in hoping that climate data would be more readily shared in the future. He told us he also thinks it is important that investigations proceed at the two universities.

The Washington Times tried to raise these issues with the reporters and editors involved, but Jack Stokes, AP's manager of media relations, said that none of the five reporters who worked on the article nor their editors had time to answer questions.

If AP refuses to explain how it could have given readers across the planet such a distorted view of Climategate, maybe an explanation can be found buried in the article itself. One of the reporters, Seth Borenstein, the AP science reporter who writes on global warming and who is the lead author on the piece, is part of the Climategate story himself. In the last sentence of the article, the authors note that the archive of disputed Climategate e-mails "includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories."

But Mr. Borenstein's e-mail was hardly standard and far from neutral. In it, the reporter disparages Marc Morano, a critic of man-made global-warming claims, as "hyping wildly" the study that Mr. Borenstein asked scientists to comment on. The e-mail almost makes it appear as if Mr. Borenstein were asking those involved in Climategate to help him discredit critics of man-made global warming.

East Anglia and Penn State are not the only two institutions that need to answer questions about what is going on behind the scenes.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/

Why don't you pick that apart rather than trying to tell EvilDetector what his avatar means to him. Just a thought...

[TheEvilDetector]

In case y'all haven't noticed ya got "cointelpro'd". :D Hijack/divert much IP? :D
Be careful, or ya just might be carrying out the very subversive tactics you are describing to others. (LOOK! OVER THERE! ...meanwhile, back at the ranch...)

Here is some interesting news regarding CLIMATEGATE, the topic of this thread. (I'd request a split, but I am sure the mods have plenty of better things to do, but this thread has gone WAY WAY off topic= in to la la land...

EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate
Associated Press coverage raises eyebrows


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/28/biased-reporting-on-climategate/

Why don't you pick that apart rather than trying to tell EvilDetector what his avatar means to him. Just a thought...

Yeah, IP is/was on a mission. LOL

I think the LEGO example, may open his eyes on the position he holds. At least I hope so.

As to the thread subject matter, I think it is a travesty how much the MSM is covering up the plan to essentially enslave the planet to far greater levels than in the past.

[Carson]

I wonder if chickens know they have been spreading mind games for some of us whenever they leave a print?

[revolutionary8]

I wonder if chickens know they have been spreading mind games for some of us whenever they leave a print?

That's deep.



and creepy.


:D

[TheEvilDetector]

i wonder if chickens know they have been spreading mind games for some of us whenever they leave a print?

lol

http://pawstampsplus.com/ac_chickenprint_a23.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know the symbology of TED's avatar, but I would be interested to know. Symbols are very powerful, as gestalt psychology shows.

[revolutionary8]

why not make a thread heavenlyboy?
HINTFINHINT

YouTube - Trio - Da Da Da (clipe) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMikAeK8rL0)

Yah yah yah

[pcosmar]

For you "Clippy" fans,

http://www.informationliberation.com/files/clippy.jpg

[InterestedParticipant]

lol

http://pawstampsplus.com/ac_chickenprint_a23.jpg
Once again, serious discussion of serious issues , such as the techniques implemented in modern day information operations (IO), are scoffed at by those who either are incapable of adult-level discussion or who purposely thwart such discussion. Which ever it is, I'll leave the observer to decide.

But the link between the Nazi symbolism, the symbolism in the "peace" sign, and the techniques behind Global Warming is that they all originate within the use of a deceptive layer of dialectics, a layer that is marketed to the public. If one can't see through this deceptive layer (ie. The Simulacrum), then they will fall victim to it.... that is how the sociological science is designed.

The Club of Rome, in the First Global Revolution, explains the real dialectic that is being created through Global Warming: Man against Humanity AND Man against the Planet. The Peace Sign also illustrates the real dialectic design behind "Peace," and it is that man can only have peace if man operates within the Marxist Dialectical design (ie. constraints) created and operated by "elites."

All of this is tied together. Only an ignorant ass would refuse to study such important concepts, or flippantly mock them.

[InterestedParticipant]

No one interested in reading the First Global Revolution? C'mon, it will give away the entire Global Warming scam and reveal the mystery behind the facade. Go ahead, rip the mask off.


“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution,
the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All
these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes
and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”


Chapter V, The Vacuum
First Global Revolution
Club of Rome (1991)
http://www.archive.org/details/TheFirstGlobalRevolution