How do you know the Global Warming Scam is over?

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Spartan What a briliant idea. There is NO LIMIT to the amount of taxes one can collect from that. EVERYTHING we do can be taxed. One question, wh othe f**k put them in charge and why the f**k are we even listening to them? And when the f**k are we going to put politicians in charge who will tell them to...you geuessed it...F**K OFF. +1.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[S55inPA]

here is an excellent article on eveyones favorite fat head
al gore. the hypocrisy and outright lying is criminal.

"The Economic Uses Of Al Gore"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB4000...868084330.html

"Last spring Tennessee Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn asked Al Gore during a House hearing if his investments in green energy meant he would benefit personally from cap and trade.

"If you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me," Mr. Gore responded (and, yes, according to two reporters present, he sighed).

Mr. Gore is quite right that his arguments should be judged on their merits, not on his investments. He's wrong to think his investments are irrelevant, and, even more, that sincerity is dispositive of anything. Sincerity is no substitute for disinterestedness.

Here are a couple questions: When so much of his position and prestige are invested in a predicted climate crisis, is Mr. Gore likely to be open to contrary evidence? Is he likely to be particularly fastidious about whether proposed steps will actually have an effect on global warming if they also happen to benefit his investments?

Ms. Blackburn's challenge was in a sense late. Mr. Gore long ago jumped over to the side where salesmanship, by whatever means, was the trumping priority. As far back as 1989, he insisted there was "no dispute worthy of recognition" about the danger of manmade climate change. By now, he titularly heads a vast establishment with a stake in one side of the argument.

Notice, for instance, after a decade in which the earth appears to have stopped warming and even cooled, that global warming advocates have rushed to embrace a computer simulation that predicts this cooling (in retrospect, of course) and allows for indefinite future cooling, even while assuring that the world is destined to face disastrous warming anyway. Isn't this what forecasters of doom have done since time immemorial when their deadlines for doom haven't been met?

Mr. Gore's own predictions of a climate catastrophe have not lessened, but every time he opens his mouth, the costs of meeting the emergency become easier and easier to swallow. They aren't even costs anymore; as he says in his new book, they are "profits."

All policy salesmanship naturally defaults toward the proposition of huge benefits and negligible costs (i.e., free lunchism). Isn't that where Al Gore is today?

Mr. Gore notes that he has poured his own money into two climate action nonprofits, but, whatever his self-felt motives, aren't these nonprofits functionally propaganda arms (i.e., advertising) that benefit his for-profit investments?

The truth is, evidence of man's impact on climate remains maddeningly elusive, in part because man's impact on climate is so small as to be hard to disentangle from natural variability. This is not Mr. Gore's position, of course. If anything, however, the case for action has become less closed since he pronounced it closed in 1989, if only because of the huge sums and manpower poured into the subject to little avail.

In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.

These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.

For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.

We could go on. But from our first column on this subject, we have been convinced that the scientific questions are interesting and irrelevant, since it was never in the cards that Western societies (or Brazil or India or China) would sacrifice economic growth for the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change. Unable to do anything meaningful about climate change, policy would therefore default to satisfying the demand of organized interests for climate pork.

Isn't that, however much he may be distracted by feelings of sincerity, exactly the economic function of Mr. Gore today?"

[MG]

http://af.reuters.com/article/worldN...5AE0FP20091115

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama and other world leaders on Sunday supported delaying a legally binding climate pact until 2010 or even later, under a compromise deal for next month's Copenhagen summit.

"Given the time factor and the situation of individual countries we must, in the coming weeks, focus on what is possible and not let ourselves be distracted by what is not possible," Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told the leaders.

"The Copenhagen Agreement should finally mandate continued legal negotiations and set a deadline for their conclusion," said the Copenhagen talks host, who flew into Singapore to lay out his proposal over breakfast at an Asia-Pacific summit.

Rasmussen's two-step plan would pave the way for a political accord at the December 7-18 talks, to be followed by haggling over legally binding commitments on targets, finance and technology transfer on a slower track, though still with a deadline.

It would give breathing space for the U.S. Senate to pass carbon-capping legislation, allowing the Obama administration to bring a 2020 target and financing pledges to the table at a major U.N. climate meeting in Bonn in mid-2010.

Once again, its not about the "Reasonable and Responsible" leaders doing their part to curb Earth killing emissions. Its about extorting the US.

[Kaz]

[MG]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...661678,00.html

US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.

The folder labeled "climate change" that George W. Bush left behind for his successor on the desk of the Oval Office in January likely wasn't a thick one. Although Bush once said that America is overly-dependent on oil, he never got beyond that insight. He was too busy waging war on Iraq and searching for a legal basis for extraordinary renditions to pay much attention to the real threat facing humanity. "Forget the climate" seems to have been Bush's unofficial motto.

But few people expected that the Barack Obama, of all people, would continue his predecessor's climate change plan. When he took office at the beginning of 2009, it was clear that the success of the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December depended almost entirely on the US -- that America needed to take a clear leadership role on a problem that could shake civilization to its very core.

Only if the US manages to reduce its excessive energy consumption, commit itself to mandatory CO2 emission reduction targets and help finance the move away from oil for poorer countries,

[JustPete]

Originally Posted by Spartan

What a briliant idea. There is NO LIMIT to the amount of taxes one can collect from that. EVERYTHING we do can be taxed.

One question, wh othe f**k put them in charge and why the f**k are we even listening to them? And when the f**k are we going to put politicians in charge who will tell them to...you geuessed it...F**K OFF.

Yep ... +1000

[JustPete]

It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.

Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared..

But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold?'

'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared.

A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'

'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'

The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.

Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold?'

'Absolutely,' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'

'How can you be so sure?' the chief asked.

The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy.'

Remember this whenever you get advice from a government official!

[MG]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...662092,00.html

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

[Eldritch]

Let's see if this development appears anywhere in the US MSM:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

[MG]

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/c...dangerous-work

The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade, a United Nations official said.

Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA), said women in the Philippines are the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the country.

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection," Mukherjee said during the Wednesday launch of the UNFPA annual State of World Population Report in Pasay City.

Wait, so, wait.........what?

[MG]

http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/...nov09/17989978

EU President calls on the Copenhagen Conference to provide the world with Global Management.

[Kaz]

The Climactic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has been hacked into, and its emails have been released to the public. Clearly showing the fraud and how political global warming is.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/2...warming-fraud/

[S55inPA]

Originally Posted by Kaz

The Climactic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has been hacked into, and its emails have been released to the public. Clearly showing the fraud and how political global warming is.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/2...warming-fraud/

this has got to drive the loons crazy!

[alewifebp]

It will be interesting to watch the non-reporting and one-sidedness from the state run media.

I guess the science isn't "settled" at all, now is it?

[Spartan]

Oh man, I'm laughing my head off.

How many times did we tell the fools the data was manipulated?

How many times did we tell the fools that it's has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with politics?

How many times did we tell the fools that it's about lefts wet dream of command and control of the population?

How many times did we tell the fools that it's about global wealth redistribution on OUR backs?

How many times did we tell the fools that the "man made global warming theory" was junk science?

Now, I don't expect fools to all of a suddenly get a brain, but the least they can do is open their eyes....and shut up.

[markopolo]

Very interesting article:

Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.
The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.

As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.

Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."

If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=513195

[JustPete]

Originally Posted by Kaz

The Climactic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia has been hacked into, and its emails have been released to the public. Clearly showing the fraud and how political global warming is.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/2...warming-fraud/

I'd just come in here to post that as well ...

[mleskovar]

I believe these so called "hackers" are real scientists at the HCRU with integrity, conscience, and pass words. The effect on Copenhagen should be telling. Already there are reports of 'green' demonstrators frantically changing the wording on their signs and posters from 'warm' to 'normal' so as not to waste the chance to demonstrate against something....anything.

[Spartan]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

I believe these so called "hackers" are real scientists at the HCRU with integrity, conscience, and pass words. The effect on Copenhagen should be telling. Already there are reports of 'green' demonstrators frantically changing the wording on their signs and posters from 'warm' to 'normal' so as not to waste the chance to demonstrate against something....anything.

They are saying that his is an inside job. Probably someone who these hucksters attacked.

The hockey stick was a joke, the "increasing carbon dioxide means increasing tempertures" are a joke, the last vestige of "proof" was their claim that "scientist" said so and now we know that their integrity and "scientific proof" is a contrived joke. Now what? Secret hand shakes between believers? Sacrifices to the Tree Gods?? Jim Jones parties?

All is not lost. We finally have a modern fable to go along with Little Red Riding Hood and the Three Little Pigs.

[JustPete]

Originally Posted by mleskovar

I believe these so called "hackers" are real scientists at the HCRU with integrity, conscience, and pass words. The effect on Copenhagen should be telling. Already there are reports of 'green' demonstrators frantically changing the wording on their signs and posters from 'warm' to 'normal' so as not to waste the chance to demonstrate against something....anything.

Yeah ... I agree.

Whistle blowers ... which we all know how they get treated these days.

If it was ... God bless them for exposing some corruption.

[mleskovar]

Obvious attempt to downplay the email/data posting as nothing more than a prank. Who do they think they're kidding?

"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a statement."

http://news.aol.com/article/hacked-e...rming%2F778525

[alewifebp]

Originally Posted by Spartan

They are saying that his is an inside job.

That's what a security researcher has said about it. A very specific hack like this, with only one account hacked, it certainly seems to be inside.
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2009/1...l-warming.html

It's a roughly 80% chance it was done by some sort of "insider", by somebody who has at least partial access to one of the internal computers. There is only a 20% chance it was done by an outside hacker breaking in. (This is my gut feel as a security researcher, there is no robustness in this estimate). Universities are more easily hacked by outsiders than most networks, ironically because Universities have a culture of sharing data.

UPDATE: A wag suggested this: Phil Jones and crew were likely logging onto their accounts using an open wifi at a climate conference. If you wanted to break into climatologist's e-mail, that'd be the easiest way to do it.

[pel C]

Open the paper this morning, and this is the headline below the mast - "Since ’97, global warming has just gotten worse". It gets better: first paragraph "WASHINGTON — Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then." So I ask - Just what the hell is going on? I get that this whole "climate" issue is no longer based in science, and is now a political and monetary hot button. I also get that the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching and the need for consensus for the Algoreian theory is tantamount, but jeeze! Same data, same everything, and yet the scientific conclusions are diametrically opposed. In this thread alone are dozens of columns written by (presumed) intellectuals discounting / debunking the entire issue, and yet, and yet...

I want to say I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore, but other than my increasing blood pressure contributing to the alleged "problem", what can be done? I've gone from kicking the cat to kicking the wife, and it's got to stop. So please, an explanation??

[M1M2M3]

Originally Posted by MG

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/177346/c...dangerous-work



Wait, so, wait.........what?

those whores have been selling sex there forever, its the most popular occupation for women.

[MG]

I haven't seen CNN pick up this story yet, but it continues to roll.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

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


By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

468 Comments Comment on this article

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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...lobal-cooling/

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]?"

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

As active Alumni of Penn State, my wife and I have demanded Mr Mann's resignation and we have notified the school that we will no longer support or Recruit for the school until Mr. Mann is no longer associated with the school. We copied the entire Alumni Association on our e-mail to the President of the University.