Xtra News Community 2
March 29, 2024, 10:28:58 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

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

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?  (Read 2773 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #25 on: November 22, 2009, 01:22:26 pm »

This article on Science.com site still uses words like 'possible' and phrases like 'gives us a good idea'.

Possibilities are not facts - its only a scientists theory.  And as for having a good idea about why something might happen, is again not factual, just an idea of one thing that may affect ..


http://www.science-com.concatenation.org/archive/geo_aug07_cowie_lowres.pdf
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5557


« Reply #26 on: November 22, 2009, 01:28:30 pm »

A lot has being learn't since 07.

It's one of the reasons I love the science - it's so fast moving...

However - having said that, science is so precise that nothing can really be fact until after the event - but this is one 'experiment' were we aim to actually avoid that side of the equation, so nothing will ever be 'fact'. Been 99.9999999% certain will just have to do this time around.
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
charlie
Guest
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2009, 01:51:48 pm »

Killing the patient is not a cure. What the current recession shows is that it is a very bad thing to have a stuffed up economy. How cynical can you get using using a recession as proof that ETS works. I would agree however that the ETS will hurt at least as much as the recesion.

Meantime the car fleet gets older.

Oh get a grip.
Who said anything about killing anything?!

The ETS presents a massive optinuity for EVERYONE.  There's is no way the world will accept something which forces the population back into the stone age - hence the reason that's exactly what they AREN'T doing.

Quite literately - under it you can turn shit into cash or plant money trees out the back!

And yes - the recession did prove very clearly that the ETS will work to achieve it's goal.

We've been going backards for 25 years and people have accepted it. The worlds wealth is in fewer people hands and we accept it. So people will also be forced to accept this stupidity. The idea is so loopy that even the greens can see its bad. The comparison between the recession and carbon production is an arguement against the hands off market driven approach to managing carbon/methane emisions - as I said before your use of it to defend ETS is just cynical and cruel so I'll leave you and your super rich chums to expound your theories on the wonderous works of market forces. In the meantime I'll still hope for a government with the balls to implement/catalise alternatives so the greatmajority will not just be made poorer and even less able to cope.
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2009, 02:30:21 pm »

PROVIDING INSIGHT
INTO CLIMATE CHANGE
THE COPENHAGEN CLIMATE TREATY


The United Nations meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009 may result in most nations approving the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
This treaty will give extraordinary powers to a new United Nations institution.
It will set up "an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries."  The agreement includes enforcement provisions that will see vast financial payments to third world countries in satisfaction of climate debt.  Payments will "Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees".
Recent research and actual measurements show that the climate is very insensitive to greenhouse gas emissions as shown in Lord Christopher Monckton's presentation here, (PDF file 10.9 MB) and in the Climate Science section of the Friends of Science website. The treaty will have no affect on global climate.
The draft Copenhagen Climate Treaty is here.
See this discussion about the treaty here from Watts Up With That.
On October 14, Lord Christopher Monckton gave a presentation in St. Paul, MN on the subject of global warming. In this 4-minute excerpt from his speech, he issues a dire warning regarding the United Nations Climate Change Treaty that is scheduled to be signed in Copenhagen in December 2009. Lord Monckton speculates that the treaty may effectively cede sovereignty to an unelected, undemocratic foreign organization.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=449

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnipKZAhgW4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZDOJqAs9eE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e80cCb9ai4&feature=player_embedded#
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 03:14:40 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
guest49
Guest
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2009, 02:31:14 pm »

They not only loose his respect - but there have been instances lately where scientists in oz have wanted to publicise results of their work and because it was contrary to the govts stand they have been threatened.

Yer - I totally disagree with that sort of carry on.
If it's based on science then we ALL need to hear about it - but if it's funded by oil, has no science backing and is an attempt to discredit simply to protect personal wealth then it can get shoved up the nearest oily ass-hole within reach.

 Smiley
I guess the sam can be said about the turkey that has a very comfortable lifestyle, thank you very much, that relies on supporting the government stance of anthropogenic change being the cause.
I think you have been told on many occasions, that the earth has warmed, changed and cooled many times.  
Your strident shouting doesnt convince me that it is not caused by natural matters - ie, the sun.  Nor do those climatologists peering into the bowels of their computer simulations, where it has been shown often that they have omitted or overlooked some vital fact or other [much to their embarrassment, I might say]

Report Spam   Logged
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5557


« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2009, 02:40:32 pm »

alternatives.... mmmm..... alternatives....

Could you name a few?
We know they cant be voluntary - that has been proven not to work...
What would you suggest?

With the ETS - he who pollutes the most pays the most - and he who plants the most trees get's paid the most.
To me that seems fair.

Do you have another idea which would work on the global scale?


I went to the supermarket again (AGAIN!) the other day - I spat the dummy nice and loudly so people could hear. In the Veg department (which SHOULD be the most environmentally friendly part of the whole con job) they have things like 24 sticks of parsley all individually wrapped up in their own 'little' plastic containers...  corn cooked in Japan, vacuumed wrapped and then wrapped again for looks - all in their own 'little' plastic containers and then shipped to NZ...  Christ - the list went on and on!!!! Razor blades each in their own little packets, tiny packets of chippies each wrapped, apple slices each wrapped, slices of cheese each wrapped... pretty much everything you can think of.
  
Out of season fruit shipped from the other side of the planet is another one I utterly disagree with... it's just bloody crazy!
Talk about not thinking!
DOH to the people!


It's THAT kind of behavior which needs to stop... and if that means imposing those companies with mega tax bills then so be it!!
I don't care - I don't buy their crap like that anyway. You shouldn't either.
I hope their 24 sticks of parsley end up selling for $80 each.
That might just about cover the damage they have done.

Cant you see how wasteful we are?!

We whinge and moan as if it's the end of the world - yet all these DUMB little "luxury's" could go and you'd hardly ever notice after a while.


The ETS wont make you poorer - it just means you'll think more about what you do. Like you did/do during a recession.
Just a few years after it's introduced you wont even notice it.
You will survive (and prosper if you take advantage of the opportunities it presents)!

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2009, 02:41:07 pm »

On the other hand Yak, there are many instances where we can see the affect of humans having caused a significant problem to vegetation - which must have had some affect on the atmosphere.  Each of them have have affected the human body - it can hardly be denued that there has laso been longlasting affects on the atmosphere from them. 

Being, The Black Forest - Germany, that was acid rain often from the UK.  Chernobyl.  Agent Orange drops in Vietnam.  (I remember reading about the micro climates there and how they changed rapidly through those times, almost returning to normal now)

There are a fair few pics on the net of climate-abuse  Grin through the Asian countries too.
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5557


« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2009, 02:43:10 pm »




I think you have been told on many occasions, that the earth has warmed, changed and cooled many times.  
Your strident shouting doesnt convince me that it is not caused by natural matters - ie, the sun.  Nor do those climatologists peering into the bowels of their computer simulations, where it has been shown often that they have omitted or overlooked some vital fact or other [much to their embarrassment, I might say]

..........


Yep - sure has!
After events such as orbital shifts, impacts, major volcanic eruptions, solar variations ....  all major planetary events easily observable in today's world.

The most recent was because of humans not having an air quality control measures in place - all the coal which was being burnt was cooling the planet (the soot) enough to bring about warnings of an approaching ice age. Strangely enough a few new laws were introduced and things got back to normal again soon enough.
 Wink
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2009, 02:54:09 pm »

Quote
I went to the supermarket again (AGAIN!) the other day - I spat the dummy nice and loudly so people could hear. In the Veg department (which SHOULD be the most environmentally friendly part of the whole con job) they have things like 24 sticks of parsley all individually wrapped up in their own 'little' plastic containers...  corn cooked in Japan, vacuumed wrapped and then wrapped again for looks - all in their own 'little' plastic containers and then shipped to NZ...  Christ - the list went on and on!!!! Razor blades each in their own little packets, tiny packets of chippies each wrapped, apple slices each wrapped, slices of cheese each wrapped... pretty much everything you can think of.

We used to produce a product in OZ for the supermarket customer.  According to the supermarkets, its the consumer who needs requires items to be packaged in certain ways.  And, our product was on a square card, we had to round the corners, customers cut themselves on sharp edges.  The solid plastic shit that is impossible to get off the product, is a requirement also, from whom I forget now.  Ferney is in packaging - she will know.

My objection in that area is more when I have one banana that they want me to have a plastic bag for  Shocked
   
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
guest49
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2009, 03:06:47 pm »

My objection in that area is more when I have one banana that they want me to have a plastic bag for 

Probably not the sort of bag you are referring to, but I have stopped buying from supermarkets that want to charge me for the plastic shopping bags and now go to the ones that provide them free..
I use them as bin liners.
Report Spam   Logged
charlie
Guest
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2009, 03:28:30 pm »

alternatives.... mmmm..... alternatives....

Could you name a few?
We know they cant be voluntary - that has been proven not to work...
What would you suggest?

With the ETS - he who pollutes the most pays the most - and he who plants the most trees get's paid the most.
To me that seems fair.



A few examples. Insulating homes - its being done in a small way. Building roads that require less breaking, accelleration, distance and maintenance. Building modern public transport infrastructure. Improving telecomunications. Removing building and developement costs on replacing one for one old houses with similar, size and style houses. Investing in comprehensive automated recycling. Creating an environment so good can be made locally rather then being exported to lower waged, polution and CO2 tollerant nations - as will continue under ETS. Better town planning that enables better access to public transport and local shops for more people - this may include more encouragement of production of shorter routes to such points. More production of renewable power sources. Better use of non renewables - ie using gas rather than gas converted to electricity.

You don't appear to be aware that existing companies will be given allocations so those who polute the most will be assured the can contnue to polute the most. When they  get their allocation they will use it is an asset to further increase the cost of fuel safe in the knowledge that no new competitors will come into the market. This will be worse than the resource management on crack for keeping out new competion but it will be on a global scale. For those on the minimum now it will put them under the poverty line in the international sense of the word. It is also generally accepted that in Europe there has been an overalocaion of carbon credits to the privledged. I guess those who missed out will just take their business to China or any other country will to fiddle the books to get jobs.

Report Spam   Logged
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2009, 03:33:04 pm »

My objection in that area is more when I have one banana that they want me to have a plastic bag for 

Probably not the sort of bag you are referring to, but I have stopped buying from supermarkets that want to charge me for the plastic shopping bags and now go to the ones that provide them free..
I use them as bin liners.

I havent stopped going to them, Ive adjusted and I take a whole heap of bags.  Always had to take chilly bin and a freezer bag to get the cold stuff and ice cream 100k back home in safe condition  Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
robman
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2197



« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2009, 03:55:46 pm »

Wonder why Rob still wont answer the "If not Humans then what" question?
It's because there is nothing else it could be. Plain and simple.
Yet they still rant and rave...


But it's not a question that has an answer because you're asking me to explain someone elses theory.
How can I give an explanation for something that is predicted by somebody else..?
Report Spam   Logged

I once thought I was wrong but I was mistaken.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2009, 04:06:54 pm »

Here's the UN climate scientist confessing that the climate warming story they are all hitting us all on the heads with is WRONG,
As I have said before climate change is a normal event,much bigger than all of us and natural.
The people pushing the climate change wheelbarrow are the politicians and bankers and people with vested interest in it, They just want to bring about more World Government control,

We are having our freedom taken from us by stealth
But I do think pollution is a big problem and thats because  we humans do need clean air to breath otherwise we get sick,as is happening in a lot of major city's in the world today.
So I do believe we need to clean up our act,

But I do not believe we humans are having much effect on climate change.

      

Global warming takes a break
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Friday, September 11, 2009

NOW Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no?

Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice never body-checking opponents.

Or Jack Layton insisted out of the blue that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers.

Or Stephen Harper began arguing that it makes good economic sense for Ottawa to own a car company. (Oh, wait, that one happened.)

But at least, the Tories-buy-GM aberration made all the papers and newscasts.

When a leading proponent for one point of view suddenly starts batting for the other side, it's usually newsworthy.

So why was a speech last week by Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute not give more prominence?

Prof. Latif is one of the leading climate modellers in the world. He is the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He has contributed significantly to the IPCC's last two five-year reports that have stated unequivocally that man-made greenhouse emissions are causing the planet to warm dangerously.

Yet last week in Geneva, at the UN's World Climate Conference -- an annual gathering of the so-called "scientific consensus" on man-made climate change -- Prof. Latif conceded the Earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and that we are likely entering "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."

The global warming theory has been based all along on the idea that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would absorb much of the greenhouse warming caused by a rise in man-made carbon dioxide, then they would let off that heat and warm the atmosphere and the land.

But as Prof. Latif pointed out, the Atlantic, and particularly the North Atlantic, has been cooling instead. And it looks set to continue a cooling phase for 10 to 20 more years. "How much?" he wondered before the assembled delegates. "The jury is still out."

But it is increasingly clear that global warming is on hiatus for the time being. And that is not what the UN, the alarmist scientists or environmentalists predicted. For the past dozen years, since the Kyoto accords were signed in 1997, it has been beaten into our heads with the force and repetition of the rowing drum on a slave galley that the Earth is warming and will continue to warm rapidly through this century until we reach deadly temperatures around 2100.

While they deny it now, the facts to the contrary are staring them in the face: None of the alarmist drummers every predicted anything like a 30-year pause in their apocalyptic scenario.

Prof. Latif says he expects warming to resume in 2020 or 2030. "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he added. According to him, that is not the case. "I am not one of the skeptics," he insisted. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."
In the past year, two other groups of scientists -- one, like Prof. Latif, in Germany, the second in the United States -- have come to the same conclusion: Warming is on hold, likely because of a cooling of the Earth's upper oceans. It will resume, though, some day.

But how is that knowable? How can Prof. Latif and the others state with certainty that after this long and unforeseen cooling, dangerous man-made heating will resume? They failed to observe the current cooling for years after it had begun, how then can their predictions for the resumption of dangerous warming be trusted?

My point is they cannot.

It's true the supercomputer models Prof. Latif and other modellers rely on for their dire predictions are becoming more accurate. A major breakthrough last year in the modelling of past ocean currents finally enabled the computers to recreate the climate history of the 20th century (mostly) correctly.

But getting the future equally correct is far trickier. Chances are some unforeseen future changes to real-world climate or further modifications to the UN's climate computers will throw the current predictions out of whack long before the forecast resumption of warming.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fd981fbc-47e4-4318-9980-ff5d5a2f3c3b&p=2
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2009, 04:21:59 pm »

The Elite Love Global Warming Tax Scam
author: anon
Fact: C02 does not cause an increase in temperature - Temperature causes an increase in C02.

Do a little homework people. Stop buying the elites' lies.

Stop begging for your enslavement.
 http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/globalists_love_global_warming.htm

Globalists Love Global Warming
Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government

Prison Planet | March 28, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address �global warming� with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam , which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.

The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv . Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click here to subscribe! Find out the true story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio and 9/11, get Terror Storm!

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government , Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.
"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "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... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

"When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker .

Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial , are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
 homepage: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2009, 05:08:42 pm »


Leaked G20 Documents Shed Light on Global Carbon Tax
Written by James Corbett, Corbett Report      
Thursday, November 12 2009 13:47



As The Corbett Report reported yesterday, veteran Bilderberg researcher Daniel Estulin has obtained documents from inside last week’s G20 Finance Minister’s meeting in St. Andrews, Scotland. The documents—including attendee lists, drafts of the conference’s communique and handwritten notes with deatils about who said what during deliberations—were snuck out of the conference by Estulin’s sources despite security measures which were high “even by Bilderberg standards.” The documents can be viewed at BilderbergBook.com and have been mirrored here in PDF format.

Listen to The Corbett Report’s exclusive interview with Estulin about these documents by downloading the mp3.

In addition to the expansion of the African Union and the population reduction goals that Estulin has identified as key G20 talking points, the documents also shed light on how the financial oligarchs hope to establish a global fund of “predictable public finance” to fight the phoney global warming problem. Startlingly, the draft document admits that the fund could be administered by “an existing international financial institution.” Although this potentially explosive language was removed from the bland, politically palatable final version of the G20 communique, attendee notes indicate the nature and operation of this fund was a key discussion point during the conference.

Although the paragraph on climate change in the final version of the document seems like an afterthought, inserted as the last point before the summation, the draft communique indicates it was in fact one of the highest priorities, originally coming right after the opening preamble. The final version has also exorcised all but the most mealy-mouthed political language.

Compare this sentence in the final version: “Public finance can leverage significant private investment” to the original: “Substantial additional and predictable public finance from developed countries is essential, and should serve as a foundation for private finance, carbon markets and domestic public resources of developing countries to contribute to climate action. Public finance can also leverage significant private investment.”

The draft text opens the kimono on the financier’s plan to establish a process for systematic wealth transfer from developed countries not to aid developing countries (who will also contributing “domestic public resources” to fight the non-existent carbon dioxide scare) but to help prop up private financiers and carbon markets. This “public finance” will of course be raised by the developed nations through taxation, thus amounting to an indirect carbon tax on the population of the developed world.

Perhaps the most egregious language in the draft document comes from the final sentences of the climate change paragraph, also replaced by bland platitudes in the final communique:

“…serious consideration should be given to the creation of a new fund, as a complement to existing mechanisms, to support projects, programmes and policies, possibly with multiple windows, to support adaptation and mitigation, technology cooperation and capacity building in developing countries. It should have balanced representation and operate under the policy guidance of, and be accountable to, the Conference of the Parties, with its operation possibly entrusted to an existing international financial institution.”
In other words, the carbon tax revenue deposited in this new wealth transfer fund will be given directly to the very institutions that have been shown as a tool of Anglo-American imperialist hegemony again and again and again.

Ultimately, the G20 defers the decision on what type of carbon tax/wealth transfer mechanism to set up to the UNFCCC, the similarly unelected and unaccountable United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that will be meeting in Copenhagen next month. Although it is clear the UNFCCC is fully on board with the global carbon tax scheme, the controlled corporate media is now reporting that the Copenhagen summit is unlikely to finalize a broad international treaty. Once again, however, the smuggled G20 documents again say otherwise.

One attendee’s handwritten note under the heading “US-Geithner” reads: “President optimistic have basic elements in place in US in next year.” Another, under the heading “Address issues ahead of Copenhagen – Wayne Swan” reads: “More agreement than think. Need find public way of communicating.” Perhaps such self-consciousness about the deep unpopularity of the proposed bankster carbon tax explains why the more controversial elements of the draft communique were removed.

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/the-money-trail/5582-leaked-g20-documents-shed-light-on-global-carbon-tax
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2009, 05:15:59 pm »

Whaleoil has done some looking into these emails.

Jim Salinger the NZ scientist who is at loggerheads with his employer at the moment seems to be a part of it ..

http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2009/11/22/the-great-global-warming-swindle/

in part ..


search for “salinger” and you get 29 results proving that Jim Salinger is a member of the conspiracy.

Here is just one excerpt of how involved Jim Salinger was, corresponding with Michael Mann over a beating up of a contrarian view. If this series of emails shows anything it shows that the phrase “peer-reviewed” will now be held in complete contempt.

On Jul 28, 2009, at 5:15 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Jim et al,
Having now read the paper in a moment of peace and quiet, there are a few things to bear in mind. The authors of the original will have a right of reply, so need to ensure that they don’t have anything to come back on. From doing the attached a year or so ago, there is a word limit and also it is important to concentrate only on a few key points. As we all know there is so much wrong with the paper, it won’t be difficult to come up with a few, but it does need to be
just two or three.
The three aspects I would emphasize are
1. The first difference type filtering. Para 14 implies that they smooth the series with a 12 month running mean, then subtract the value in Jan 1980 from that in Jan 1979, then Feb 1980 from Feb 1979 and so on. As we know this removes any long-term trend. The running mean also probably distorts the phase, so this is possibly why they get different lags from others. Using running means also enhances the explained variance. Perhaps we should repeat the exercise without the smoothing.
2. Figure 4 and Figure 1 show the unsmoothed GTTA series. These clearly have a trend. Perhaps show the residual after extracting the ENSO part.
3. They do the same first difference on the smoothed SOI. The SOI doesn’t explain
the climate jump in the 1976/77 period. Their arguments in para 30 are all wrong.
A few minor points
- there are some negative R*R values just after equation 3.
- I’m sure Tom Wigley wouldn’t have proposed El Nino events occurring after volcanoes!
Attached this paper as well. From a quick read it doesn’t say what is purported – in fact it seems to show clearly how the analysis should have been done.
- there is a paper by Ben Santer (more recent) where he applies the same type of extraction procedure to models. I’ll send this separately as it is large. In case it is too large here is the reference.
Santer, B.D., Wigley, T.M.L., Doutriaux, C., Boyle, J.S., Hansen,J.E., Jones, P.D., Meehl, G.A., Roeckner, E., Sengupta, S. and Taylor K.E., 2001: Accounting for the effects of volcanoes and ENSO in comparisons of modeled and observed temperature trends. Journal
of Geophysical Research 106, 2803328059.
Finally I’ve attached a paper I wrote in 1990,


IMO Salinger is a knowlegable and reputable scientist
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
ballasted moth
Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2804



« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2009, 06:16:38 am »

  Why do so many people want to believe the GW swindle
Report Spam   Logged

Greens are really RED
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2009, 06:25:51 am »

Why do you ask the wrong question?  Grin

IMO its why are so many people unsure as to which side is correct?

Why do you think its a swindle?
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
ballasted moth
Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 2804



« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2009, 02:39:31 pm »

 Thetre are now some claiming there is an ice age coming
It is a swindle because it involves govt taxation and inconsistent rules
Report Spam   Logged

Greens are really RED
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 23, 2009, 05:10:29 pm »

Think about this.

There are groups of bankers, industrialist,These elite are some of the richest people on the planet.They have secret meetings about how to control everyone and everything in the world,They own the worlds mainstream news media and most of the worlds wealth,They are the puppet masters they use their money and their power to install and control  corrupt governments,

To get where they today they have stripped whole nations of their all their resources and left the people destitute,They have caused wars that have cause the deaths of millions of innocent people,They have cheated on the stock markets with insider trading,they have crashed the stock markets to help themselves to more of the worlds wealth,They treat the worlds people like cattle,they have no respect for anyone not even each other,

And these same people are pushing global warming,which is now called climate change,They are saying its caused by humans,If they are right in what they are saying then they are the very people who have caused the so called warming problem in the first place with their greed for money and power.

So now it looks like they are setting themselves up to cash in on the problem they created.

But thats only if you believe the man made climate change lie.

Look at the real facts and don't get carried away with all the hype,The earth has a long history of warming and cooling and man just had to adapt to this fact or die.
It is natural and not man made,

The carbon tax is just a huge ripoff,and no amount of the trillions of dollars they plan to take from us will change anything... Grin



  
« Last Edit: November 24, 2009, 06:05:02 am by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
guest49
Guest
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2009, 05:15:36 pm »

Top post!
Report Spam   Logged
Lovelee
XNC2 GOD
*
Posts: 19338



« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2009, 05:42:57 pm »

Sexy, Ive been hoping you would translate all that stuff youve been posting.  I cant be bothered reading to that extent.

I agree with Yak - Top post!!

I have been saying for ages - we are a country of 4.5 mill people, just under 2 million provide the taxation on which the govt operates.  We must be able to raise the wages of the civil servants (police & teachers & health staff etc) but we cannot without lifting taxation on the working population.  We have a rapidly aging population which will need to be subsidised pensionwise.  We have restructuring of highways - and we must be able to 'keep up' electronically.

They will not raise taxation 5%, which is what is needed to cover the rising costs, what a clever scam  Cheesy
Report Spam   Logged

Laughter is the best medicine, unless you've got a really nasty case of syphilis, in which case penicillin is your best bet.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8271



WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2009, 11:38:46 pm »

I don't have the web page for this i lost it
This will give everyone an idea of who is running the world


A nation applies to the IMF for a bank loan
The loan is contingent on the nation's rulers signing secret agreements by
which they will sell off the nation's key assets to whatever corporation the IMF
selects (the water systems, the railways, the telephone companies, the
nationalized oil companies, gas stations, etc.)
According to a secret agreement between the leaders of Argentina and Jim
Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank, a pipeline that runs between
Argentina and Chile was sold off to a company called Enron

According to that same secret agreement the water system of Buenos Aires was
sold for a song to a company called Enron
Citibank grabbed half the Argentine banks
The rulers must sign a secret agreement, averaging one-hundred and eleven
items, whereby they will run the economy according to the dictates of the IMF;
if they don't follow those steps they are cut off from all international
borrowing; no nation can survive without borrowing

The IMF/WBG pay the rulers billions to their Swiss bank accounts when they
sign the secret agreements stripping the nation of its assets


And its these same people are pushing the carbon tax,the climate change.
It all comes back to the worlds bankers pulling everyones strings.
If we knew all the things that are really going on behind the scenes in this we might all crap in our daks 

Every day we are being feed lies about everything,

When our country takes out a loan from the world bank, we the people are the collateral for these loans,they think of us as walking pieces of money and just numbers.

They know we are quite happy to let other people rule over us thats because we already have enough problems,Most of these problems they created to keep us so busy and unthinking we become like  putty to be molded by their hands
So we live our mindless life's watching TV and paying our bills worrying about our children not really thinking about the deeper things of life.Kiwis with our beaks poked into the ground too busy trying to make ends meet.
We must all be in pain because we moan a lot.
We all need to remember that the only good things in life are free like love,friends and family,good health.
Because things that cost money can be replaced those things are worthless,

Its no use worrying about all this stuff its too late,
we have given them control and they control us thats because we don't think

Most people in the world are good but they are burnt out by the struggle.
Its a crying shame we cant find them and stomp on those globalist elite bastards.

We need a don't worry be happy revolution  Grin 

.       
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5557


« Reply #49 on: December 13, 2009, 07:04:48 am »

Climate science not faked, but not pretty
By The Associated Press - an independent audit.

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.

The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them - about 1 million words in total.

One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two US researchers denied it.

The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.

"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."

When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."

Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."

The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author. Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)

"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.

In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted - and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."

The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.

One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.

Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."

When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.

The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.

Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods.

As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.

"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.

David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...Smiley."

But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.

None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.

"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.

Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at - and upheld as valid - Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.

"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.

Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."

Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments - even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet

"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."

One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.

"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.

McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.

Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.

McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.

He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."

The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.

"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/3155346/Climate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty



And that ends that.
See how easy some people are sucked in?
The skeptics will grab at anything to cause confusion in the general population.
 

10 years of private emails and not ONE 'smoking gun' - that kind of says something really doesn't it!

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.047 seconds with 15 queries.