Whistleblowers exposes global warming is a HOAX!

[chrisfromchi]

worth clicking on.  we all need to be as fired up as that guy. 

what he didn't mention, is the effect climategate could have on 9/11 truth.  if they lied about climategate, why should we believe what they say about 9/11?

Ya i check that guys channel every so often too see if he has a gem or two. sometimes he does.

[Brocke]

worth clicking on.  we all need to be as fired up as that guy. 

what he didn't mention, is the effect climategate could have on 9/11 truth.  if they lied about climategate, why should we believe what they say about 9/11?

He doesn't believe that 911 was an inside job and he hates Charlie Sheen.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=drinkingwithbob#p/u/22/Hnryudg7cg8

[kidA]

So on another board, I've been posting articles and youtube videos about this...yet someone had this to ask:

"I don't want your opinion about the NWO, as I don't care about it, but I really want to know why you would link this NWO and climate changes debates ? It just makes no sense"

So I answered:

Ok now I see what you were asking.

"So the NWO is all about a one-world government, global governance. If you have been watching the news this past year, you might have seen that word being tossed around; global governance. Why? Why do these politicians keep pushing this idea of everyone on this world being governed exactly the same way? Because they want to control us, be their slaves. What does this have to do with climate change [like how they don't really use global warming anymore...because this planet isn't WARMING it is cooling. Climate changes...d'uh]? Well, the NWO has had to get everyone to believe in this fairytale of global warming, blaming HUMANS for the earths "warming." They have been implementing this ideology since the early 70's by the Club of Rome ["In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."]. Next month in Copenhagen, there will be will be a vote for all countries to have the same rules and regulations for energy use. This would be the beginning of the end of the USA's sovereignty. Living under a global governance is what the NWO wants and they won't...not as long as people are learning the truth. Truth like the emails from the CRU. The truth that they have been manipulating information in order to get people to believe in global warming. This could not have come at a better time. Watch the video of Ed Begly Jr. spewing non-information...it's hilarious.

EDIT: You think there are "debates"  about global warming? The jury is out...humans are the problem. They don't want "skeptics" asking questions. AL Gore is correct. You know, he is a scientist and he really did invent the internet. "

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

Was my answer a good one? I'm a little stoned so my explaining may be way off, but I felt I gave him an idea of what is going on.

[Librium]

Found this statistic on wattsupwiththat.com

Copenhagen vs. Climategate in the MSM

Google hit counts (as of Saturday 11/28) in perspective:

Copenhagen Climate Conference    6,920,000
Copenhagen Climate Summit    6,130,000
Copenhagen Treaty    2,810,000
Copenhagen Total    15,860,000
Number of MSM stories on Copenhagen    > 1000

Climategate    10,900,000
Climate Gate    6,200,000
Global Warming Scandal    3,050,000
Climategate Total    20,150,000
Number of MSM stories on Climategate    < 10

[chrisfromchi]

Was my answer a good one? I'm a little stoned so my explaining may be way off, but I felt I gave him an idea of what is going on.

Yes that about covers it. Maybe add something about the raw data for their climate models being faked, but i only understand that from a small perspective anyway.

[kushfiend]

Found this statistic on wattsupwiththat.com

Copenhagen vs. Climategate in the MSM

Google hit counts (as of Saturday 11/28) in perspective:

Copenhagen Climate Conference    6,920,000
Copenhagen Climate Summit    6,130,000
Copenhagen Treaty    2,810,000
Copenhagen Total    15,860,000
Number of MSM stories on Copenhagen    > 1000

Climategate    10,900,000
Climate Gate    6,200,000
Global Warming Scandal    3,050,000
Climategate Total    20,150,000
Number of MSM stories on Climategate    < 10

haha omfg I want to print this out and shove it in my Parents faces!!

They still refuse to believe that the "tv" would lie to them and everyone else.  Sickening lack of coverage by MSM on an issue they talk about 10,000 times a day.

DAMN YOU TAVISTOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMNNNN YYYYYOOOOOOOUUUUUUU

[Librium]

It's really starting to depress me, these sheeple, even with non "denier" IPCC scientists asking for resignations and investigations, they still don't get it.

They deserve everything they get, if Copenhagen passes. EVERYTHING.

[Librium]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/

[chrisfromchi]

ClimateGate Who's Who
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE

[Brocke]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/climategate-surpasses-global-warming-on-google-autosuggest-still-blocked/

I just left a comment on wattsupwiththat. I tried a Google search hoping that the results for a "climategate" search would have increased. GUESS WHAT!!!

I got 722,000!!!!

Here is a screenshot


The globalist Google mother@#!@%S have axed more than 10 million pages from the search results.

All hail the new truth and freedom on the internet. I am discussed and sickened.

[mr anderson]

Try and count the number of times 'denier' is used 


‘Climategate’ emails: Scientists defend science

Renfrey Clarke
28 November 2009

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/820/42157

Climate change deniers, conservative politicians and right-wing newspaper columnists were all but incontinent with delight. Flooding the internet in mid-November were thousands of documents and private emails that had been exchanged over more than a decade by prominent climate scientists.

The emails were posted anonymously after hackers penetrated the server of one of Britain’s main climate change research centres, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

Here was the chance, opponents of orthodox climate science evidently told themselves, to discredit forever the “theory” of anthropogenic — that is, human-caused — global warming.

What would the emails reveal? Doubts about the climate change case, bullying of scientific dissidents, suppression of evidence, outright scientific fraud?

Even if the messages revealed nothing of the kind, the myth would have taken wing: that the great global warming scam had met with its “Climategate”.

The Australian on November 24 quoted right-wing Liberal Senator Nick Minchin stating: “These emails reveal at least prima facie evidence that supporters of the theory of anthropogenic global warming are going to considerable lengths to doctor evidence and to suppress information and intimidate those who don’t support that theory.”

Adelaide University professor of mining geology and leading climate change denier Ian Plimer was still more categorical. “This substantiates what I hinted at”, Plimer told the Australian. “Here we have the Australian government underpinning the biggest economic decision this country has ever made and it’s all based on fraud.”

But what have the deniers actually trawled from their ocean of stolen messaging?

Probably the most damning single allegation relates to a remark by CRU chief Dr Phil Jones about the use he made of work by a colleague, Dr Michael Mann of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University.

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

To believe the denialist bloggers, that is a confession of gross falsification — signed, sealed and delivered. But take its context into account, and the passage becomes completely innocuous.

A “trick”, in the jargon of scientists, is an ingenious way of overcoming a problem. Mann’s “trick” involved juxtaposing observed temperature records to “hide” a false decline implied by tree-ring temperature data known to be partly inaccurate.

What else, then? Might scientists be artificially boosting temperature rises through choosing to believe computer models, rather than the objective evidence?

Dr Kevin Trenberth of the US Center for Atmospheric Research complains in one of the emails that modelling of sea surface temperatures “shows there should be even more warming”.

“We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment”, Trenberth laments, “and it is a travesty that we can’t”.

The observed data, he surmises, “are surely wrong”, and the observing system, he maintains, is inadequate.

But has Trenberth reacted to the discrepancy by suppressing or “doctoring” evidence? There is no suggestion, in the emails or anywhere else, that he has.

On the falsification of research results — a career-ending offence for scientists — all the scouring through the emails has come up with nothing.

But not to worry. As propagators of the anthropogenic warming myth, the scientists are clearly the sort of people who would do such things.

And for true deniers, that is enough.

Those reading the emails not stuck in a conspiracy theory, meanwhile, have been struck by what is not there. There is no evidence of almost everything denialists have confidently maintained goes on in climate research institutes.

RealClimate site observed on November 20 that the e-mails revealed “no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research … no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords”.

The denialists, of course, are not simply buffoons — and correspondingly, the materials released onto the internet have a darker, almost tragic side. They reveal a very human bitterness among climate scientists at attacks that have intensified in recent years.

Modern-day Galileos, the scientists confront an Inquisition based in wealthy right-wing circles and the “think tanks” that serve them.

The pressures on the scientists are described eloquently in a November 23 Washington Post blog interview with physicist and historian Spencer Weart, who said: “We’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

“Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers.”

To their credit, leading climate scientists have fought back against demands that they make concessions to bad science. A prominent figure in this resistance has been the CRU’s Jones — which perhaps explains why his institute was the target of the hacker attack.

The New Scientist said Jones and Mann in a 2003 exchange of emails discussed urging scientific authors to boycott the journal Climate Research after it published “extremely poor papers” by known denialists.

New Scientist said the journal’s editor-in-chief and half the editorial board resigned over the matter.

In 2004, Jones and Mann discussed ways of blocking two papers, whose content they regarded as unscientific, from being assessed for use in a report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In other emails, ways are discussed of keeping temperature data, largely covered by confidentiality agreements, out of the hands of denialists.

As depicted by denialist bloggers, the atmosphere that has arisen inside the climate science community is one of arrogant intolerance, with dissenting voices ruthlessly silenced. But again, an understanding of the context is vital.

In the first place, anthropogenic global warming is no longer just a theory, but established fact. Trenberth was quoted as saying in the November 22 Washington Post that “it is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions.

Predicted by fundamental laws of physics, human-caused global warming has now been demonstrated by real-world evidence so overwhelming, and from so many sources and directions, that refusal to accept it is simply perverse.

There are no legitimate sceptics any more, just the ignorant or wilful deniers.

Second, within the climate science community there is no longer dissent on the basic concept of human-caused global warming. All working climate scientists — that is, those who publish in peer-reviewed journals — now agree anthropogenic warming is real.

The unresolved questions relate to its degree and precise mechanisms. On these, debate is rich and generally cordial.

Third, tolerance is not a virtue in dealing with people out to subject humanity and nature to intolerable risks.

Jones and his colleagues are aware, like few others, that the consequence of failing to combat denialist pseudo-science would very likely be a catastrophe of civilisation-ending proportions.

Finally, climate change deniers, especially in the US and Australia, are hardly isolated and picked-on. Historically they have been well funded, not least by big energy corporations, and they have huge media resources at their disposal.

Disturbingly, they are gaining ground. In a recent Pew Research Center poll in the US, only 36% of respondents felt that human activities lay behind a temperature increase. That was down from 47% in 2006.

In Australia, the corresponding figure in September this year was a far-from-overwhelming 67%.

So when Jones, Mann and others mount a tough, uncompromising fight for scientific rationality, do they deserve to be pilloried? Adelaide University Climate Change Professor Barry Brook has, perhaps, the best take on this question.

On November 27 Brook told Green Left Weekly that anyone who wants to criticise the scientists involved should “first place the contents of their email archive for the last 10 years on a public repository, such that anyone has the opportunity to download it, peruse it, and cherry-pick out-of-context statements”.

Minchin and Plimer, to name just two, would be unlikely to fare well.

[Brocke]

I just left a comment on wattsupwiththat. I tried a Google search hoping that the results for a "climategate" search would have increased. GUESS WHAT!!!

I got 722,000!!!!

Here is a screenshot

The globalist Google mother@#!@%S have axed more than 10 million pages from the search results.

All hail the new truth and freedom on the internet. I am discussed and sickened.

I figured out that 722,000 is the results from "this exact wording or phrase:" query.

If I search from the "all these words:" box I get 10,600,000.

[EvadingGrid]

Well I like it !

I did my little bit on my web server. The webcrawlers like googlebot have indexed and cached every single email and doc so far as I can tell.

please mirror anything climategate related.
every byte counts.

[Brocke]

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.
 

By Robert Mendick
Published: 8:55PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

Leading British scientists who were accused of manipulating climate change data have agreed to publish their figures in full.

David Holland is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain's most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.

The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate.

A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.

David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain's most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.

Mr Holland, of Northampton, complained to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) last week after the leaked emails included several Freedom of Information requests he had submitted to the CRU, and scientists' private responses to them.

Within hours, a senior complaints officer in the ICO wrote back by email: "I have started to examine the issues that you have raised in your letter and I am currently liaising with colleagues in our Enforcement and Data Protection teams as to what steps to take next."

The official also promised to investigate other universities linked to the CRU, which is one of the world's leading authorities on temperature levels and has helped to prove that man-made global warming not only exists but will have catastrophic consequences if not tackled urgently. Mr Holland is convinced the threat has been greatly exaggerated.

In one email dated May 28, 2008, one academic writes to a colleague having received Mr Holland's request: "Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??"

Mr Holland, who graduated with an external degree in electrical engineering from London University in 1966 before going on to run his own businesses, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It's like David versus Goliath. Thanks to these leaked emails a lot of little people can begin to make some impact on this monolithic entity that is the climate change lobby."

He added: "These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don't believe they can ever be wrong."

Professor Trevor Davies, the university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: "CRU's full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

"We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data."

Among the leaked emails disclosed last week were an alleged note from Professor Phil Jones, 57, the director of the CRU and a leading target of climate change sceptics, to an American colleague describing the death of a sceptic as "cheering news"; and a suggestion from Prof Jones that a "trick" is used to "hide the decline" in temperature.

They even include threats of violence. One American academic wrote to Prof Jones: "Next time I see Pat Michaels [a climate sceptic] at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."

Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: "There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

"This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude."

Prof Jones, who has refused to quit despite calls even from within the green movement, said last week in a statement issued through University of East Anglia, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues."

He suggested the theft of emails and publication first on a Russian server was "a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks".

He added: "Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

[v]

They're going to delete/doctor all their info before they release it.

[Brocke]

They're going to delete/doctor all their info before they release it.

No doubt. The IPCC will assist with damage control and send in the GWHM (Global Warming Hit Men).

[Stan]

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009


CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December  Photo: Getty

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

[iRonic]

Morning joe? reports climategate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRkzO7oOLuw&feature=related

i hadnt seen this posted elsewere

[iRonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAHgAQHmCzw
Climate crunch: David Bellamy on global warming fraud
(australian TV)

Notice the very end of the clip, Banned from bbc interviews for his views? woah who has a agenda to keep

[Damascus]

Morning joe? reports climategate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRkzO7oOLuw&feature=related

i hadnt seen this posted elsewere

Ok, alleged Emails? and only one said something about manipulating the data. Way to F*CKing lie out you ASS there Joe! Looks like they will just try to push this under the rug by any means, We will just have to push back even harder and expose these F*ckoffs for what they are. A bunch of lying puss buckets.

[mr anderson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAHgAQHmCzw
Climate crunch: David Bellamy on global warming fraud
(australian TV)

Notice the very end of the clip, Banned from bbc interviews for his views? woah who has a agenda to keep

In-sync - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BFKI2hjsPE

Not a quality rip from the video source I must say.. 

[Stan]

 

There's a very brief clip of Alex and Hide The Decline in this Russian news story. Except you won't be able to understand a word of it unless you speak the lingo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTmtTA3t58

[lee51]

UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf ’should be barred from the IPCC process’ — They are ‘not credible any more’

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Saturday, Nov 28th, 2009

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes that the short answer to that question is: Short answer: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.

Zorita was a UN IPCC Contributing Author of Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. Since 2003, Zorita as headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany. Zorita has published more than 70 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Zorita’s stunning candor continued, noting that scientists who disagreed with the UN IPCC climate view were “bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

“In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research,” Zorita explained. [Zorita's full statement is reprinted below.]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-scientists-turn-on-each-other-un-scientist-declares-climategate-colleagues-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-ipcc-process-they-are-not-credible-any-more.html

[v]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"Climate Change Data Dumped"

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

[Scientific_Mania]

Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

http://www.flyingbuffaloes7.net/keluar6.html

[EvadingGrid]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

"Climate Change Data Dumped"

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

So much for the Scientific Method of Enquiry . . .

These people need to be fired and there 'work' removed from the shelves in the Science Section and re-filed under Science Fiction.

[Jackson Holly]

The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical
friends DIDN'T tell you about climate change

By Peter Hitchens
Last updated at 8:37 AM on 29th November 2009

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231694/The-inconvenient-truths-Mr-Gore-fanatical-friends-DIDNT-tell-climate-change.html

As it happens I was Green before the word came to mean what it does now.

From a very early age, I hated the ploughing up of this country for the motor car, and grieved at the mad closure of the railways, a view that has now become much more widespread than it was then.

I began bicycling to work before bike lanes had been invented, when Boris Johnson was still at Eton.

To this day I get a sort of red mist when I see great trees being cut down by over-cautious councils, and I gaze with limitless regret on the bleak prairies of Southern England, where hedgerows once grew.

If I can take a ship and a train rather than a plane, I will do.



Polar bears are supposedly the victims of global warming, but the ice in Alaska traditionally melts in August

So it’s no use trying to dismiss me as some kind of petrolhead polluter who wants to cover the planet with runways and motorways, nor to allege I’m in the pay of Big Oil, when I say that I doubt the existence of man-made global warming.

I just doubt it because I am not convinced it’s true. Actually, now that Big Oil has bought into the man-made warming scare itself, I generally get even cruder abuse, being called a ‘denier’ as if I were some kind of Nazi.

And if I mention my doubts at public occasions, I can feel the swelling wrath of the unreasoning mob gathering against me.

There’s seldom time to make more than a few points before you are howled down by righteous zealots.

And that is why I, and anyone seriously interested in this subject, owes a great debt to Christopher Booker, who has set down all the arguments for doubt in a single, concise book that will no doubt be either ignored or abused.

It would be very sad if, as a result, it fails to reach a wide audience. I think anyone remotely concerned about this huge controversy should read this courageous piece of work.

I am not asking you to agree with everything in it, or assuming that you will. I am asking any reasonable person, who is influenced by facts and logic, to consider the case made here.

If you have had doubts but suppressed them for fear of being drowned in anger or contempt, buy this book to arm yourself. If you know any global-warming fanatics, buy it for them for Christmas and ask them, even beg them, to study it carefully.

At the very least, it should allow the debate on this subject to be conducted with more fairness and without such expressions as ‘denier’ being used.

What you will find out is this. That much of what passes for accepted truth is not. Facts have been ruthlessly twisted, suppressed or invented. Scientists are greatly divided on the subject.

Many people – and bodies – presented as experts actually have little or no knowledge of the science involved. Gullible politicians and gullible media men and women have repeatedly fallen for it.

Hucksters, profiteers, world-government fanatics and, of course, the EU (always searching for an excuse to increase its power) have latched on to it.

Huge public subsidies, including the carbon-trading racket and the tragicomic building of hideous, worse-than-useless windfarms, now depend upon it.

But take, just for example, the famous picture of polar bears on a melting ice-floe, supposedly doomed victims of global warming.

The USA’s ex-Vice President, the propagandist Al Gore, got audiences going ‘Aaah!’ by saying the bears had ‘nowhere else to go’. Really? The picture was taken in August, when the Alaskan ice always melts. The polar bears were fine. Think about it.

They can swim and they weren’t far from land. Recent studies show that most polar bear populations are rising.

The world was warmer than it is now in the early Middle Ages, long before industrial activity increased CO2 output, a fact that the warming fanatics have worked very hard to obscure.

Oh, and the most important greenhouse gas by far is not CO2 but water vapour, which is not influenced by human activity at all.

Meanwhile, an English court of law (despite buying the CO2 argument) has identified nine significant errors of fact in Gore’s Oscar-winning alarmist film An Inconvenient Truth, ludicrously being inflicted on children in British schools.

Among these: sea levels are not going to rise by 20ft any time soon; there’s no evidence that atolls in the Pacific have been evacuated because of rising waters; the Gulf Stream is not going to shut down; the drying-up of Lake Chad, the shrinking of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro and Hurricane Katrina were none of them caused by global warming; the only polar bears that have drowned were four that died in a storm.

Booker also reminds us that even if all the measures demanded by the warming zealots were put into action, according to their own calculations this would only delay the effects they fear by six years.

In my experience, people who employ alarmism, and who turn with rage on their critics, do so because they lack confidence in their case. Watch their behaviour at the coming Copenhagen climate conference, a festival of panic and exaggerated woe.

This particular frenzy, if not checked, could end by bankrupting the West and leaving us sitting in the cold and the dark whistling for a wind to power our dead computers – while China and India surge on to growth and prosperity because they have had the sense to ignore the whole stupid thing.

* The Real Global Warming Disaster, by Christopher Booker, Continuum Books, £16.99.

An army of dupes is winning the drugs war


A terrifying new conventional wisdom is growing up – a belief that drugs such as cannabis, heroin and cocaine should be legalised.

Advocates of this nightmare don’t yet use that word – since international treaties prevent it at the moment. They speak of ‘decriminalisation’ or ‘regulation’.

You might expect this sort of rubbish among the mumbling, frazzled relics of the Sixties.

The ones who insist, between long vacant pauses, while they struggle to remember who and where they are, and look round the room for enemies, that dope never did them any harm.

But now it has spread to the respectable world of Tory MPs and businessmen’s magazines (the sort smart executives carry about but don’t read), and semi-official reports by members of the Great and the Good who ought to know better.

Some of these people are that worrying combination, simultaneously stupid and clever, trying to prove their brilliance by saying something outrageous.

Some have suffered moral harm by secretly breaking the law themselves. Lacking the courage to confess or regret their misdeeds, and fearing exposure if they now support the law they once transgressed, they fall in with the fashion.

Others continue to take drugs, permit their children to do so and would find life more convenient if the law were relaxed.

All these I regard as contemptible degenerates and/or dupes, though many of them are wicked as well as gullible.

The power I really fear is the one that lurks in the shadows behind these useful idiots.

Someone, somewhere sees the chance of making serious money out of drugging the millions who are now protected by law from such terrible exploitation.

And that someone, by slippery propaganda, is on the brink of success.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Okinawa]

Upfront money needed to ease UN climate deal http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_follow_the_money
By Charles J. Hanley, Ap Special Correspondent – Sun Nov 29, 4:14 pm ET

NEW YORK – Money on the table — perhaps $10 billion a year or more — could help close a deal in Denmark next month and keep climate talks moving toward a new global treaty in 2010. But if poorer nations see too little offered up front, the U.N. conference could end in discord.

The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.

"Rich countries must put at least $10 billion a year on the table to kick-start immediate action up to 2012," the U.N. climate chief, Yvo de Boer, told reporters last week in a preview of the two-week conference opening next Monday in Copenhagen.

His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.

"The rest of Europe will do so," Brown told a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad on Friday. "And I believe America will do so as well."

U.S. President Barack Obama and the Chinese leadership energized lagging climate talks last week by announcing modest targets for controlling their countries' emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for warming the atmosphere.

Although talks will now be extended, Copenhagen was originally meant to culminate years of negotiation centered on two pillars: emissions reductions and financial aid for developing countries to adapt to climate change.

The proposed emissions targets by industrialized nations for 2020 — and China's plan to slow emissions growth — fall short of what scientists say is needed to head off damaging climate change. But if developing nations accept the quick-start financing, a deal might be reached at Copenhagen on a framework for putting all elements in a binding agreement next year, with an eye toward deeper emissions cuts and heftier financing beyond that.

"Short-term finance would be used as an opportunity to get a political buy-in for the other elements of an agreement," said Athena Ballesteros, a climate-finance expert at the Washington think tank World Resources Institute.

The needs are becoming increasingly clear.

An international scientific update last week said changes are happening faster than anticipated. Global temperatures are rising by 0.19 degrees C (0.34 degrees F) per decade, pushing the world into a time of climate disruption, species die-off and expanding seas. Oceans are rising by 3.4 millimeters (0.13 inches) per year, faster than predicted.

"It threatens to submerge the Maldives. My country would not survive," Mohamed Nasheed, president of that low-lying Indian Ocean island nation, told a conference of vulnerable nations earlier this month.

Offers of assistance thus far have been "so low, it is like arriving at an earthquake zone with a dustpan and brush," Nasheed said.

In scores of nations, money will be needed to build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil-fuel to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power.

The World Bank estimates adaptation costs alone will total $75 billion to $100 billion a year over the next 40 years. The cost of mitigation — reducing carbon emissions in poorer nations — will add tens of billions to that. China and other developing countries say the target should be even higher, in the range of $350 billion.

De Boer's $10 billion a year to 2012 is barely a start. But "kick-start finance is so important because such finance will allow developing countries to plan," he told The Associated Press.

In fact, much of the funding would go to "capacity building" — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns.

Upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States.

Climate conference observers expect the European Union to offer most at Copenhagen, perhaps $5 billion a year or more. Japan might contribute $1 billion or more, as would the United States. Appropriations for 2010 totaling some $1 billion to $1.3 billion related to international climate aid are making their way through Congress.

"Quite simply it's the bottom line for getting a deal," New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key said of the financing package, as he pledged up to $50 million on Sunday at a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad.

Obama might use his Dec. 9 drop-by at the Copenhagen conference — on his way to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway — to announce a U.S. offer on financing. Some 80 other presidents and premiers are expected to attend the final days of the conference Dec. 17-18.

Finance expert Ballesteros expects Copenhagen to narrow the focus of talks next year on sources for longer-term, richer adaptation funding, such as a levy on international air transport, sharing in proceeds from the growing trade in carbon emission allowances, or even a global levy on carbon emissions.

Most important is that such revenue be "stable and predictable," not dependent on vagaries of budget-writing in national capitals, she said.

Emissions reductions, adaptation finance and other elements would be part of a hoped-for treaty or set of internationally binding agreements next year to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Its limited emissions reductions expire in 2012. The U.S. was the only industrial nation not to accept Kyoto.

[Stan]

Check out this freak...

Climategate won't make global warming go away, despite what Delingpole tells you
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100018240/climategate-wont-make-global-warming-go-away-despite-what-delingpole-tells-you/

Imagine a Premier League of cranks and conspiracy theorists. Who do you reckon would top it? It’s a tough call. I think Holocaust deniers would lift the cup, with 9/11 truthers not far behind. But there’s a new lot on the rise, recently promoted from Division One: global warming sceptics. Fuelled by the hype surrounding Climategate, those who believe that climate change has nothing to do with mankind’s release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere have had a storming week – led, in case you hadn’t noticed, by our very own James Delingpole...

But don't worry about countering the guy. He got torn a new one in the comment section.

[Stan]

His goal gathered backing in recent days, including from French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said his nation would contribute $1.3 billion over three years.

"The rest of Europe will do so," Brown told a Commonwealth summit in Trinidad on Friday. "And I believe America will do so as well."

Mighty generous. And according to Cameron's recent announcement there'll be no change in policy when they sweep to power next year (he also got his arse torn to shreds on his blog). The proles have no opinion as far as these people are concerned. We better get wise.

[Jackson Holly]

Check out this freak...

But don't worry about countering the guy. He got torn a new one in the comment section.

Here is the guy: Will Heaven is a writer who specializes in politics and the internet.
He also writes about Catholicism and religion.
He can be emailed at will.heaven@telegraph.co.uk and is @WillHeaven on Twitter.



WILL HEAVEN?  Will Heaven what?

Who cares what this guy thinks? What is he ... about 19?

He does not know his ass from a whole in the ground.

[iRonic]

Phelim Mcaleer The irish movie producer that was thrown out of the al gore meeting for not being a mind slave speaks on fox news about climate gate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5SRJJmfJs

it starts off with a few seconds of Ed the nutter you wont be forced to watch him nut out all over again 

[mr anderson]

Which country’s media is least willing to report on Climategate? John Roskam divides Google mentions per country of origin by population, and confirms your suspicions:

[Flynn]

Good find Sir, very telling.

[Mike Philbin]

wow, FOX does ClimateGate! (50 mins ago)

Climate-Gate Heats Up But Mainstream Media Ignore Firestorm
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/03/dan-gainor-climategate-media-journalists/

By Dan Gainor
 - FOXNews.com

The network news media have been hiding in the storm cellar, hoping the Climate-gate story will blow over. But the storm isn’t going away.

It never rains but it pours. You would think climate experts would know that. Clearly, they don’t. Instead, supposed climate scientists have been caught in a storm of their own making over documents released onto the Web raising huge questions about how global warming “science” has been done.

At issue is an enormous dump of data from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit that was leaked or hacked and placed online. The data included more than 1,000 e-mails – many of them back-and-forth communications among prominent scientists. The private e-mails showed potentially unethical or illegal behavior and a possible conspiracy to distort science for political gain. That scary list includes plans to avoid freedom of information requests, efforts to delete data and discussions of ways to intimidate the peer review process of scientific publications.

But the broadcast networks haven’t bothered with the story.

Phil Jones, head of the climate unit, stepped aside temporarily for an investigation. Climate scientist Michael Mann, one of the originators of the famous "hockey stick graph," is being investigated by Penn State as well. Republicans on Capitol Hill are calling for an overall investigation into the scandal.

And the network news media have been hiding in the storm cellar, hoping this one blows over. Only it isn’t going away. It’s now been 13 days since the story hit the news and despite network censors, the Climate-gate scandal is turning up the heat on global warming advocates. What started as a drizzle of stories in The New York Times and Washington Post is growing into an Internet flood that is sweeping along traditional news outlets from CNN to NPR.

But  morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC have remained absolutely silent. Both ABC and CBS's Web sites have covered the issue -- standard practice when networks want to bury a story but pretend otherwise. The only mention of the scandal actually on those networks was on ABC’s Sunday morning talk show: “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
That’s all. President Barack Obama is heading to Copenhagen, Denmark next week to promote a pact to reduce greenhouse gases that impacts every one of the 6.7 billion people on earth and the networks continue to cover for him on Climate-gate.

What have the networks reported on? Tiger Woods, of course. Since he ran his car into a fire hydrant and crashed into a tree, the golf superstar has been covered by roughly 40 stories on the big three networks. Tiger’s extramarital putting around was one of the most important stories of the day – above a scandal that journalists would ordinarily embrace. -- If conservatives were involved in it.

Remember how much the media loved it when the Bush administration was accused of editing climate change documents? NBC anchor Brian Williams led the Jan. 30, 2007 edition of the “Nightly News” with this tough question: “Did the Bush administration in any way try to cook the books on the topic of global warming?” Now the better question in 2009 is did Brian Williams and his fellow network anchors try to do the same?

No, their reporting was completely honest. They focused on the real news of an orphaned moose and the meal selection at the president’s state dinner. Even the November 25 reports about Obama going to Copenhagen ignored Climate-gate.

But ABC, CBS and NBC no longer rule the media landscape. Twitter has been flooded with Tweets about the scandal. And even lefty class clown Jon Stewart played weatherman and media critic recently. Stewart mocked the climate scientists for destroying data and for relying on “value added data.” “Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony,” he joked. Though he blasted global warming skeptics, he still went on to criticize the scientists who sent the scandalous e-mails. “Why would you throw out raw data from the ’80s? I still have Penthouses from the ’70s! Laminated. What did you keep?”

While Stewart might appear to be a just a comedian to many Americans, his message reaches a broad coalition of left-wing voters both young and influential. When the lefty group ACORN got into trouble over hidden camera video showing what appeared to be employees helping a pimp and hooker try to set up a brothel, Stewart’s scathing critique was the last straw. Soon after his bit on ACORN, the organization announced a major investigation of itself.

Stewart is a bit ahead of the game this time, but the skies look bleak for the global warming alarmists. Maybe because what’s in the e-mails is so embarrassingly bad. Here are a couple examples:

From Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann and others including James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer in Oct. 2009:

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

From Jones to Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes and Michael Mann on Feb. 21, 2005:

“PS: I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

A May 2009 e-mail from Jones allegedly told Mann to delete e-mails regarding the Fourth IPCC draft and said Keith and Caspar would also delete the correspondence.

I agree with Trenberth, the whole thing is a “travesty.” One of the now famous comments from the e-mails was from Jones to Mann and appeared to indicate manipulation of scientific data. Jones wrote:

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

“Hide the decline” is such a memorable term that it has been enshrined in song in a humorous video by Minnesotans for Global Warming that has been seen by 330,000 YouTube users.
The controversy is already having public policy impact. According to Reuters, “Australia's parliament rejected laws to set up a carbon trading scheme.”

All of this controversy would be a blow to global warming alarmists any time. For all of this to happen just days before the Copenhagen summit, is a stunning setback. No matter how little network coverage this gets from journalists more obsessed with Tiger’s scoring, this is the big scandal of 2009.

It is also just one more example of the mainstream media hiding the big news of the day from the American public. We’ve had ACORN and Van Jones and now Climate-gate. But try as they may, network journalists can’t “hide the decline” in global warming science or a similar “decline” in journalism standards causing their own ethically bankrupt actions.

Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center’s Vice President for Business and Culture. His column appears each week on The Fox Forum and he can be seen on Foxnews.com’s “Strategy Room.” He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

[portuguese anarchist]

There's a very brief clip of Alex and Hide The Decline in this Russian news story. Except you won't be able to understand a word of it unless you speak the lingo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbTmtTA3t58

 

Thanks for that clip, Stan. It's great.

It's even better than АЛЕКС's appearances on Russia Today.

[Okinawa]

Hypocrisy Now: Top Climatologist Hopes Copenhagen Talks Collapse http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/4/headlines#4

The global climate change summit in Copenhagen begins on Sunday.
In advance of the meeting, one of the world’s top climate scientists is claiming he hopes the talks result in failure. In an interview with The Guardian, NASA climatologist James Hansen said any agreement to come out of the talks will be inadequate in averting climate catastrophe. Hansen says negotiations should instead be started from scratch. Hansen has called for more substantial emissions cuts than those on the table, as well as a carbon tax on major polluters. Earlier this week, Hansen addressed demonstrators at a climate action in New York.

James Hansen:
“As long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they’re going to continue to be used and their use will increase. So we have to put a price on carbon. And the money that is collected from this price must be returned to the public 100 percent, either as a monthly dividend or a payroll tax deduction or a combination of those. If we do those things, the problem becomes solvable. If we don’t, it is the biggest inter-generational injustice in the history of the world. We’ll be leaving our children and grandchildren with a situation out of their control. So we’ve got to begin to influence the polices that are being talked about. And what is being talked about in Washington now and in Copenhagen now is totally inadequate. It’s greenwash. It’s cap and trade with offsets, which will be just like the Kyoto Protocol. It will do nothing to reduce global emissions.”

India Unveils Proposal to Reduce Emissions
India, meanwhile, has unveiled a proposal to cut emissions relative to the size of its economic growth. On Thursday, India said it would reduce its carbon intensity 20 to 25 percent by 2020. The Indian government says the pledge won’t be legally binding or subject to international monitoring.

Now's spin on how to prolong the fraud. I guess they'll get some greenie points for keeping their viewers in the dark.

[Joe(WI)]

Found this...

[Pedro]

Not only was this scandal not the proverbial nail in the coffin of this stinking hoax, but it didn't seem to affect the discourse of the left wing press at all. Surprisingly, if you can still be surprised by left wing lack of honesty, they just went on regardless. The British left's main promoter of the climate change hoax, the Guardian's George Monbiot, said in this fantastic blog that we're talking about only a very few unimportant scientists, and there are still hundreds of UN kept scientists that still maintain that the theory is very real.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

He then descends into a grotesque satire to avoid any further explanation.

It's not their (left wingers) fault, they are just bound by their physical impossibility of admitting error.

[portuguese anarchist]

It's not that. This Monbiot character can only be consciously lying. He can't be that stupid as to not be able to understand the evidences that have been laid down in front of him.

This high-profile "left-wing" media characters and writers are also part of the game.

They exist to create acceptance, among the public, to allow the political system to evolve into a more "leftist" position and, at the same time, to make people agree with more police state reforms.


http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=107184
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=43336