'Climategate' takes a new turn ...
 

.. just before the eve of the Copenhagen summit comes Gordon Brown's glowing support of the pro-man made global warming (MMGW) camp, plus a major BBC PR-exercise with this particular article .. :

BBC News - UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row

In it he claims MMGW skeptics are 'flat earthers'. It has not been unknown for pro-MMGW supporters to decry non-believers in such a way. In fact some people who are convinced that climate change is due to mankind view non-believers as worse than people who deny the holocaust and assume that they are either a far right winger / 'neo-con' or someone in the employ of major oil/coal/gas/other vested interest company. Well I checked my post this morning and, as usual, there were no cheques or BACS confirmations of payments from Royal Dutch Shell or BP. Also I think I'd probably rather masturbate with a fist full of angry wasps than vote for that insipid twunt Cameron, despite the complete and utter mess Blair/Brown have led us into with their foreign policy of 'insert tongue in Bush's anus'. So maybe myself, and many others like me don't fit their 'model' of the 'enemy'.
I've read a few of the hacked and/or leaked emails from Hadley CRU including the notes made by the programmers of the database that was supposed to accurately contain and reflect all climate information, and it seems to me that they didn't have a clue. Now if they didn't have a clue surely accurate estimates can't have been deduced.
So, after the pro-MMGW claims that climate 'skeptics' are 'conspiracy theorists' and 'right wing nutjobs' they are now claiming a conspiracy theory themselves by suggesting that the hacker and/or whistleblower has been paid by an oil/gas/energy company.
Now the Copenhagen summit is mainly about setting caps for carbon output, and implementing the cap/trade system where countries can exchange 'pollution permits'. Now guess who's doing all the carbon trading ? Yep, energy companies & casino-style divisions of banks (who, of course need to bolster their liquidity).
Sorry if this is a 'tldr' ...

"Well I checked my post this morning and, as usual, there were no cheques or BACS confirmations of payments from Royal Dutch Shell or BP. Also I think I'd probably rather masturbate with a fist full of angry wasps than vote for that insipid twunt Cameron, despite the complete and utter mess Blair/Brown have led us into with their foreign policy of 'insert tongue in Bush's anus'."

This cracked me up....lmao funny as truck.

Why is it when the BBC put up news that is not what you like it is a 'PR exercise'?

I think it's because the BBC have utterly failed to report on the CRU scandal as anything other than a data theft and even in that report they've completely downplayed the contents of that stolen data. It's a whitewash and certainly not a balanced viewpoint. Hence being PR for Copenhagen.

I can understand how you feel about Cameron, but would you really vote for NL after what they have done to this country?

Les

Because the whole of that article is blatant one-sided propaganda!!!

Every single person or organisation mentioned in the article is a member of the Alarmist Apostles!!! :mad:

...and this bias runs through the entire BBC News web-site!

Do a search at news.bbc.co.uk for "Lord Monckton" and you will not find a single news article about him or his opinions (although some people have referred to him in comments about one article).

It is a total disgrace :mad:

mb

Les, I see nothing in the Tories that makes me think they'll be any better than NL. They're even greener, or claiming to be anyway, than this lot are!

No Euro referendum. Their policy on getting us out of recession seems to be different from the rest of the G20.

Sorry, I just don't see it.

I don't care if you 'believe' or don't believe, but surely most can see that this whole argument (MMGW) has now taken on the same merits, and believability, of the messages carried by people wearing placards suggesting 'The End of the World is nigh'.
Get a grip please. :thumb:
BTW, I'm heavily involved in nuclear (last 23 years) and should be supporting these loons but, no, please don't make me laugh :lol1:

They certainly went down seriously in my estimation when they binned the referendum. That will cost them a lot of votes. I think their biggest mistake was to elect Cameron rather than David Davis who i think would be a better leader with a more sensible attitude.

Can't say about their GBW policies yet, but you may be right.

I still think however that they are far more likely to save this country from complete destruction of our traditions and ideals with total subjugation the the Eu.

Our position with regard to the recession is dire to say the least and NL's attitude to overborrowing and overspending in the preceding years have left us very much worse off than it need have been. I fear for what will happen next year with regard to the economy.

Les

I see that the latest BBC propaganda article is topped with a picture of those nasty cooling towers emitting gigatons of smelly black "carbons" into the atmosphere :rolleyes:

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...08325964-1.jpg

I guess that it is no coincidence that Cnut the Great was King of Denmark nearly a thousand years ago! Why is it that some people still think that they can control nature?

mb

You think the BBC is bad; Have you watched any of the diatribe ITN have been spouting on ITV?

I'm not sure which is worse.

I've got to admit i am starting notice the change in climate,it does seem to have warmede up a bit from the last ice age :thumb:

Cooling towers emit mere cooling water vapour, but I get your drift.....

LOL

dunx

P.S. They are all corrupt, so hang 'em all.

All the BBC reports i have watched didnt mention what was said in the exposed emails and just glossed over the scandal they have exposed.

If it had supported their climate change agenda the BBC would have quoted whole sections of the emails.

Impartial reporting<------------light years----------->BBC

Personally I can't claim to be experienced or educated enough in the scientific fields relevant to this whole debate to make an informative decision one way or another as to who's right or wrong ... or even who's most likely to be correct based on the available evidence. I suspect this is true for many others aswell since unless you're a scientist with exceptional knowledge in ALL the fields I don't see how you could make a call one way or another on it.

The thing that's getting on my nerves about it all is the way the information is being presented. It seems that more often than not, the contrary information considered to be controversial is either being completely denied or is being acknowledged and then critiqued but not in a professional and evidential manner. Rather, it's being rubbished and the people behind it being personally attacked even to the extent of name calling which frankly is just childish.

At this point I'm still on the fence as regard to my personal opinion on it one way or another since I'm waiting to see informative, balanced, controlled and evidenced arguments .... was always my understanding that science was based on these principles since the point that you remove those principles it becomes belief which is not science. So far, the only people that have stuck to those principles are the guys saying that it's all a scam. The response to their evidenced arguments is what? .... name calling. Have to say that based on this that my opinion is starting to lean towards supporting the guys saying it's a scam. That's not to say I wouldn't change my mind if I were to see good arguments and evidence that suggest contrary but so far there's been very little of that mores the pity.

To me there does also seem to be high degree of hypocrisy in it when you have all of this going on and as usual the two biggest sources of finance are the ones being targeted the most heavily : Industry and Car owners, yet no doubt there'll be methods for the industries that the government wants to keep ticking along to either avoid the requirements imposed or they'll see some kind of way to to make a financial gain that offsets the requirements and, it seems perfectly ok for the public transport sector to put out vehicles on the roads that chuck out more cr*p out the back of them than even the worst pikey owners transit van can manage! But oh what a surprise, public transport vehicles are exempt from m.o.t. testing .... now ain't that a wonder?!

If they want pro-support then they have to justify it. It's that simple. What they're doing at the moment and the way they're going about it makes it look like a cover up and the public just aren't that stupid anymore. If it looks and smells like manure then you're odds on to find it is manure. We're not in the 1940's anymore when the public would watch in the cinema's and read in the papers just how spectacular Britain was and sit there with a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the powers that be were making all the right decisions on behalf of them and were of course completely right because of course, who were the public citizens to challenge it or look for an explanation of it.

Bloody hell, the sneaky sh1ts have now changed the main picture in the article i mentioned above from the "cooling carbon towers" to true nasty smelly smoke stacks (at the original URL).

From this...
https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...08325964-1.jpg

to this...
https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/imag...08360459-1.jpg

Impartial, transparent journalist my arse!! :mad:

mb

Well, that's just it. You do NOT have to be a climate *expert* to be able to spot the scam. Apart from the obvious political signs, such as taxing us to death(!), you just need some very basic maths. If you know what an average is (take a series of numbers, add them up and divide by the number of numbers) then you've got it sussed.

Go on from there and try to determine how they would determine an *average* temperature for the earth. Right, so we would have to have lots of weather stations (or whatever you want to call them) that take the temperature at various times of the day and night. You would then need to take the temperature at the exact same time every time. Then you could add them all up and divide by the number of thermometers. But how would you account for the fact that the stations were at different altitudes, different latitudes? How many would you need? How many times would you need to take the temperature? What about faults in the equipment? And the equipment would have to be identical to be sure of *precision* (precision - will give the same reading with identical inputs. Not the same as accuracy - where the reading will be the *actual* reading).

When you did come up with an *average* temperature, how would you then decide on what was an *optimal* *average* temperature????

In terms of measurement issues, go to Home to see how many, many stations actually give *dubious* values. Also, these are just the US ones, which are meant to be the most extensive and best maintained in the world. Oh, and how about temperatures over the oceans? Oh well .....

So, how do you come up with an *average* temperature? Maybe you can BUT you then have the fact that the majority of temperature measurements are highly dubious. So, you can't ..... end of.

And have a read of American Thinker: Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline for a discussion of how a lot of the IPCC's temperature *reconstructions* are just a load of hot air .... :wonder:

Don't be conned by the so-called experts that say that unless you have a gazillion PhDs in *climate science* you know nothing. Their arguments are based on premises that are easy to demolish.

Dave

Dave,

no, no, no - you are quite clearly wrong ;)

The "impartial" (you make it what it is) BBC have produced a neat little article proving completely and absolutely that all "sceptics" are totally mistaken!

See "The arguments made by climate change sceptics"

It is so good to know that the science is settled - move along now, there is nothing to see (but give us loads of your money first).

mb

Not disputing what you say about the arguments Dave, in fact at this point i'm starting to feel inclined to agree but .... the significant factors to me at this point are that there's been very little evidence produced to demonstrate they're right about this and the majority of evidence that has been produced has been based off simulations, computer models and calculated predictions. All fine in theory but different to reality and proven to be at fault on more than one occasion. You say people only need to be able to do basic maths but there's far more to consider than just one factor which even the guys saying it's all a scam do state. There's a lot of angles to look at and without the appropriate knowledge, the information is just numbers and statistics which can always be made to lie with deliberate misrepresentation. I'm applying an even simpler logic to it at the moment than doing maths : people and their behaviour. Usually when people behave as though they have something to hide, they probably have. In this case the pro-guys are being extremely twitchy and refusing for the most part to get involved with evidence based debates which suggests to me that they're worried they'd lose the debate. If there's that potential to lose then it really can't be as concretely solid as they're making it out to be.

All I want to see is a proper reasoned and argued debate on it. I'm perfectly capable of calling the ball one way or another given the demonstration of a logical debate but that's not what we're getting. It's propoganda and personal attacks from the pro-guys, there's evidence from the anti-guys but without contrary evidence from the other's it's hard to judge whether there's spin there or not (although at this point their evidence and arguments do seem reasonable) and then there's the sabre rattlers for both sides.

The problem with all of this is belief from both camps. It's not about belief, it's about fact but those facts can only be demonstrated and defined with controlling evidence. The anti-guys are quoting evidence based on past events which is fine; it's proven historical data but, it's perfectly possible to quote out of context or mis-represent that data which is why the control of the other evidence against that data needs to be presented too. In essence, one is meaningless without the other. The reason i'm starting to lean towards supporting the anti-guys other than based on the pro-guys behaviour is that there has been little or no evidence presented to counter the specifics of the anti arguments and facts which leaves me concluding that there's possibly two reasons : 1) there is no data to counter it or, 2) the data they do have doesn't counter it but actually supports it. Either way, it doesn't present a particularly strong case for the pro-guys.

Damn. I am now a convert. Actually the proof that swung me is that we have some daffodils across the road from us that are about to flower. 'Nuff for me ..... :Suspiciou

Dave

No. There is NO way to compute an average temperature for the whole planet. And the temperature measurements we do have are not accurate thus rendering any average calculation wrong. QED.

Why do you think a large part of the 'climategate' story has been about manipulating temperatures? Why do you think that the Met Office has just said that they're about to re-examine 160 years worth of temperature data?

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online

and from that "... The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics ..." which falls in very nicely with your theories ..... :thumb:

Dave - things are usually very simple .....

Brilliant article - thanks for the link :thumb:

mb

Oops, it seems as though i got it all wrong, and CO2 is indeed evil...

seeemples...

BBC News - Science Explained: Greenhouse effect in a bottle

...at least according to the BBC :rolleyes:

mb

...in a completely sealed system, which the earth isn't.

i have concerns over the science, and the general bandwagoning of the whole climate issue and have said on numerous occasions that to get to the truth you often have to "follow the money".

that is why I find the end comment on the above link so illuminating and slightly disturbing

"Tomorrow, over 20,000 delegates from 193 nations will gather in Copenhagen to craft an agreement which would not only force American power consumption to levels equal to those of about 1910, but would also have us pay reparations for an imaginary “climate debt” we’ve accumulated by building the world’s greatest economy of all time. That debt is based on the amount of CO2 our financial growth has purportedly pumped into the atmosphere, which, according to the conclusions of the IPCC, based largely upon reports from the CRU, has selfishly imperiled the planet by inducing climate change.

Of course, asking Americans to pay reparations based on the claim they’ve done harm to other nations by spoiling the climate is like asking me to pay damages to my neighbor based on his claim that he can’t sell his house because my great-grandmother’s ghost is haunting it. "

Lord Christopher Monckton

Take time to watch this video (all five parts) - it is worth it!

mb

Fascinating, thanks for that. I just wish that Ian Plimer, Bill Bryson and now Christpher Monkton could garner enough media hysteria and political support to provoke an international debate or even inquiry into the UN and its IPCC to collapse their corrupt profiteering thievery. The UN seems to be considered by the worlds public as some sort of peaceful, beautiful, ideological council of good will, there to save us from ourselves and bring harmony to the planet and its peoples. Whereas, they are of course simply a cherry-picked bunch of multi-national government representatives ensuring that the global revenue streams keep flowing. That's why they never seem too interested in places like East Timor, suffering genocide at the hands of The Philippine armies for decades whilst having no oil, mineral or manufacturing wealth to justify UN assistance.

I wonder whether Al Gore went to Singapore in the end (or is that still to come, I missed the date). Given that Monkton said he takes every chance to duck confrontation with anyone who might outwit him, I doubt this meeting would ever take place :rolleyes:

In case anyone thinks the *Russians did it*, as *speculated* by the papers, look here .... EU Referendum: Speculation

Dave