Doom & Gloom Climate Fraudsters EXPOSED! *** "Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow *** GLOBALLY!

I read many of those yesterday.

Big Al's push for money isn't really going to work

Just keeping the flow sure and steady... Thanks Richard.

Thanks, Linda. Keep the information coming. Perhaps the global warming insisting folks at Gather will read, even if they don't bother to comment. :-)

A thank you the Char H. for sharing the information.

Good news. It's not a settled science like Gore tells us.

Apparently.

The ones on here (of course, it's typical) are all saying that it was criminally found evidence so, in essence, that negates the whole deal. And you know, I wouldn't even bother to mention that because it's so moronic to think that they're trying to say the truth would be thrown on some kind of technicality. What is pertinent to this mindset though, is that this agenda has been for so long propagated under a lot of false science, so do you really think that it's that much news to politicians who were in the inner circle like Al Gore? They had to be aware that data was being manipulated. They had to be behind the scenes knowing full well that dissenters were being ignored and silenced, and dissenters with excellent credentials and their own data that proved the hoax. If working against the truth didn't bother them before it came out, then why would it bother them after it came out? It will only make it more difficult for them now, but not impossible.

We recently saw the nomenclature change from Global Warming to Climate Change. No one can deny that climate changes, and so even if, as some some scientists contend, we're in a cooling stage, the green agenda still has a basis for them to proceed, and I think this is why they changed the name of the issue. Those who are so bent on promoting Cap and Trade and green initiatives have to know very well that the science was being skewed, and they had to have been concerned for a long time that the truth might surface in some way that could be incriminating so they changed the basis for the need and the name change is just the backdrop. This is was a profilactic measure, and there are probably other bases onto which they can segue so they can still proceed if the scientific basis entirely fails. World economy, peace, and a number of other rhetorical reasons could be cited and expounded upon, some of which might already be ready to go in plan B. They've got too much invested to let this go up in flames.

Just the idea that they've got so many people who immediately see that a hacker is a criminal but not that if the emails are factual is absurd, and the criminality behind those emails is like comparing a dime store robbery to first degree murder. These types just don't want to recognize reality and so the promotors have got a lot of support no matter what they decide to do about it. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see that anything but money ever motivates anything, and if there are enough elitists who want to make it happen, it will. (Plus, it's Green Week on NBC.)

There is still some talk that the hackers had help from someone inside who wanted the information known. That could be too, I guess.

It doesn't matter that the information was gotten by hacking, for pity's sake. That doesn't change the facts.

We know now what many of us have been saying all along is true. 31,000 scientists are hard to ignore now that we know they have been debunking this doo-doo all along.

Thanks Sue. Common sense gets buried by the "I don't care I just want to do what they tell me because I can't think for myself".

and Marilyn - you jumped in...

Then I can go ahead and hack into your email, since you deem it is ok.

While I am at it, I think I will also go into your bank accounts, personal pics..ect.

Oh, that might be wrong? It might be against the law?

But you can't say that if you are applauding a criminal for the same act.

I don't agree with all this global warming stuff myself, what ticked me off is the celebration of a criminal act.

Is the swiping of the data a bigger crime than foisting of the false data onto the world?
Is the data in some sense paid for by tax dollars (university salaries, etc.)? If it is, doesn't that public deserve the info.

Oh, Nellie. THEY are already allowed!

Nellie being irate by this "criminal act" hasn't done much reading about her government.

We should give the hackers the Nobel Peace Prize!!! They certainly had OTHERS in mine and wanted to serve justice.

Maybe it is my Machevellian side showing but all is fair in love and war. As Bugs Bunny says, "this is war" since the climate debate is part of the huge culture wart we are fighting. So in this case, the ends justify the means. You got to break eggs to make omlets.

Anyways, they people did not hack into the server in the first place, it was available on an open network. It is up to the people who own the network to protect it, if it is open to the public, it is up for grabs. It is on the backs of the people who have the network to erect firewalls, make passwords and encrypt their data. I know this, I used to work in IT.

Then, anything can be hacked? You just have to be smart enough to get around the firewall.

It looks to me like someone within the group was p**sed on,and decided to spill the beans as a form of revenge.-Norman

This is the first entry I've viewed on the "Progressive Politics" subsite. And now I'm wondering what the heck is progressive about any of this?!!!

Global warming, caused by humans, may not be a proven fact. But it IS an overwhelming likelihood. It just makes too much sense to be the result of over-zealous wackos. Sure, there are some errors in the models and predictions-- it's just way too complicated a set of variables to get it all perfect. But the one thing that's clear is... global climate IS changing! Dozens of lines of evidence indicate that. And, just logically speaking, how could humans NOT impact the planet in a major way...? There are more than SIX BILLION of us! Eatin', defecatin', pollutin', polymerizin', slashin', and burnin'! If you haven't seen the impact of people on the natural world in your own wilderness/pastureland/estuary-turned-suburb, then you're just not looking.

As for cheatin' liars, you can find those in any field. I would wager that they're as small a minority in the field of climate science as they are in the sciences that brought you microwave ovens and chemotherapy.

Thank you for your comments Steve.

Steve, even if you say is true, is it worth a Cap and Trade bill that would cripple our economy and raise your utilities and gas bills by at least double? Is it worth a treaty that would turn a large part of our economy over to the UN and eventually our government? That is what's at stake here. It is not messing up the landscape it's messing up our system of government and turning it over to the UN.

I'll acquiesce to Sue B's comments above.

"Global warming, caused by humans, may not be a proven fact." That's right, it isn't.

"Global climate IS changing." Yes, it is. It always has and it always will.

"And, just logically speaking, how could humans NOT impact the planet in a major way...?"

And just logically speaking, they do impact the planet, but not in a major enough way to compete with the forces of nature. There is nothing more major than the forces of nature. Computer models cannot accurately enough simulate nature because there are many variables that cannot even be factored in that change the accuracy of results even when they are untampered and unskewed. They're not overzealous wackos; they're criminals in the first degree because they have gullible people like you believing that "it just makes too much sense."

I did extremely well during that period. Businesses were going insane, worried they were going to lose all their data and I had so many technical contractors out working day and night to fix the problem. Thank God for fools too.

We can't fix climate changes, because they are not broken.

Yep, Colonel-- to me, it IS worth it. The alternative is disaster. Mass extinction. Maybe even including Homo sapiens. (all of which, in my book, is pretty close to "broken"....)

For Claudette, two words: passenger pigeon

Species die every day, maybe it was their time to go.

Sue wrote: "They're not overzealous wackos; they're criminals in
the first degree because they have gullible people like you believing"

And their motive would be...? Catastrophic collapse of the economy, as the Colonel warns? Becaaaaause... they hate the tax revenues being high enough to support their own research...? C'mon, the folks with the biggest conflict of interest-- the only ones with specious motives-- are on the other side: big oil, coal, gas companies.

Incidentally, I'm actually not gullible at all. I'm a professional skeptic, in fact. I run a research lab (biomedical, not climate science), serve as an editor for five very rigorous biomedical research journals, and review grant applications for the National Institutes of Health.

Sue, I fear that you just don't have the perspective to see the impact of humans on the planet. Next time you fly, look down on the ground below and try to find a couple hundred square meters that haven't been altered by human activity. Even the oceans have been affected dramatically (see: "island continent of plastic garbage in the Pacific"). If the 100 million Americans living in the Mississippi River watershed put fertilizer on their lawns, that's-- what, about 12 million acres of nitrites?-- getting washed into a single river. And that's not even counting the farms! In the period between 2000 and 2005, humans-- yes, puny li'l subjects of nature that we are-- cleared the Amazon rainforest at a rate of 227 square miles per week. That's more than 12 football fields per day. At that rate, the whole Amazon would be cleared in 250 years. Now the Amazon accounts for about 20% of the world's oxygen supply. And yes, it could still produce a fraction of that as cropland or pasture. And yes, there may be some minor offsets by growth of other plants/algae somewhere.* But can we really take a chance on surviving on 16% atmospheric oxygen? And here's the kicker: if the "do-nothings" prevail, it won't take 250 years to get there: The rate of deforestation is accelerating such that it would only take 40 years to completely mow down the entire Amazon rainforest!

*If you think that the "forces of nature" will exert a steady rudder on this, preventing oxygen levels from dropping that far, consider this: during the Permo-Triassic period, atmospheric oxygen was only 12%. Clearly, there is no magic hand keeping everything homeostatic.

OK, it's pretty clear to me that I'm talking to a wall here. I'm not going to convince any of the "progressives" in this group. So, bye now.

Wow. that's a lot of information Steve, and now doubt of your knowledge.

So, what are your answers?

" C'mon, the folks with the biggest conflict of interest-- the only ones with specious motives-- are on the other side: big oil, coal, gas companies."

I don't think you quite understand the mindset of entrepreneuerial endeavors. If you think that petroleum companies that see that their profits are going to be marginalized because of another agenda, aren't going to play the game so they keep making money, you're living in some kind of bubble.

"Incidentally, I'm actually not gullible at all. I'm a professional skeptic, in fact. I run a research lab (biomedical, not climate science), serve as an editor for five very rigorous biomedical research journals, and review grant applications for the National Institutes of Health."

I never said you were uneducated, but there are many educated people who are gullible, and the fact that you are part of academia lends a clue to what I would expect you to think. You are obviously very much enamored with this so called consensus, though you admit that you are not a climatologist. I would think, however, that as any kind of real scientist you would want to be sure that those in your chosen profession would not demean the discipline by manipulation of data that is part of the scientific process.

"Sue, I fear that you just don't have the perspective to see the impact of humans on the planet. Next time you fly, look down on the ground below and try to find a couple hundred square meters that haven't been altered by human activity."

I fear, I'm saddened, and I'm so sorry, are the typical left wing sentiments I see everywhere I look, but they mean nothing because if anyone is any of those it is I. I never said that people don't impact the atmosphere. You said they were a major force, and I merely stated that they are not as major a force as nature is. I've never contended that we shouldn't comply with cleaner and more environmentally friendly lifestyles, but if you look back to 10 years ago, we were told then that it might already be too late and not a moment could be wasted while I and others saw the very people who espoused radical ideas as to how we should comply, and with utmost alacrity, be the most damning culprits themselves.

"...during the Permo-Triassic period, atmospheric oxygen was only 12%. Clearly, there is no magic hand keeping everything homeostatic."

Whatever that's supposed to prove... That was over two million years ago, and obviously it didn't annhilate the planet. There was extinction but the point is that you have no proof that if something was attempted to be done about it that it wouldn't have happened anyway, so that makes my point a whole lot more than it does yours.

There's almost nothing more intriguing than to watch Darwinists attempt to defy natural selection, but when there is realistic action they might take to actually help deter the devastating ramifications of nature they sit idly by and watch it annihilate a population. There's a great example of that with Katrina.

Could properly engineeered levees have at least reduced the devastion? We're talking about water here, one of the most potent natural forces there is. I don't know the answer as to whether they would have helped, and really only environmental engineers would know whether or not such structure could withstand that overwhelming force.

Two questions come to mind immediately. Was it possible? If it wasn't humanly possible to save a specific area from devastation, how much more impossible are man's efforts to save a whole planet from those forces of nature that cannot even all be accounted for in computer models?

Interestingly enough, however, it was the so called environemtalists who thwarted plans to even try. There wasn't enough money in that. It wasn't a cash cow. They didn't wish to damage the eco-system of wetlands, or so they said. "In order to let the lock and dam upgrading go through, environmentalists have demanded almost twice as much funding for their programs as the cost to upgrade the locks and dams." Oh yeah, sure, the gullible believe that only big oil is interested in money and environmentalists and other scientists are purists whose only objective is the greater good of humanity. Tell it to your turkey students who gobble it up.

Here's the link I meant to put in above where the statement I quoted can be found.

Well, I said I wouldn't respond here anymore, but Sue's last comment reminded me that I forgot to make one key point: The Permo-Triassic transition was indeed a very long time ago (over 250 million years, actually). And changes like the oxygen level rise that occured between then and now are slow enough for biological systems to adapt. But human activity is changing the climate at a VERY rapid (and sustained) pace. The transition between the Permian and Triassic periods saw an enormous extinction: about 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life forms disappeared! It is theorized that this was the result of a drop in oxygen levels that happened too fast for life to adapt.

Think about it: We're taking fossil fuels-- the summed accumulation of the sun's energy that life forms were able to sequester over nearly a billion years-- and combusting it within a span of about 200 years! For every ton of fossil fuel you burn, you get about three tons of carbon dioxide-- the numbers are just astronomical! It's bound to change things more rapidly than most natural forces could. AND, more persistently. Yeah, there have been meteor impacts and volcanic activity that alter atmospheric conditions for a decade or two, but our liberation of all the carbon that's ever been collected just keeps on going (running on at least 10 decades now) at a higher and higher pace. Can we adapt fast enough for that? Remember, it doesn't just depend on the our own technological adaptations (e.g., air conditioning, water collection, alternative food sources, etc.); it also depends on the biological adaptation of many other life forms: the algae in the oceans, the very slow-growing trees in our forests, the honeybees that fertilize our crops, and on and on. Without the whole web, we're doomed.

And as far as the burden of proof goes, I'd say we should err on the side of caution when the potential risk is so profound.

I clearly admitted that there was extinction, and the more extinction there was again makes my point rather than yours. That is natural selection and the planet has survived. You have absolutely not one leg to stand on that there was anything humanly possible that might have been done to significantly reduce that extinction.

If you're so interested in erring on the side of caution, then why didn't environmentalists want the levees built that could have saved the almost 2000 lives of human beings who were killed, and the over 15 million who were affected?

I just saw a segment on Fox where Dr. Kevin Trenberth, one of the consenus scientists who happens to also specifically be a climatologist, was the spokesperson for the alleged email fraud. He was on with opposing, Myron Ebell from the Competitve Enterprises Institute. The moderator/anchor, someone I don't know, was not the best they have, but it's the day before Thanksgiving so they used what they had, I suppose. His questions weren't as pointed as I would have liked, but he did have the support of some of the more scathing and incriminating emails that made it interesting.

Unfortunately, Trenberth is not one of the persons whose emails were among the hacked, and I'm sure that having the clout of being a scientist of the consensus who is a climatologist and not having been directly involved with the emails made him the choice for the interview. I hope they have a video of this because you really have to see his body language as these allegations were presented. When one email was read that clearly stated that a scientist was going to delete the information that clearly showed was contradictory to their claims, Trenberth ashamedly hung his head to his right with shoulders undulating as if to massage away the pain of the embarrassment and regain his composure to be able to make some feeble refute with some semblance of a poised composure. He proceeded to call the facts that were in that email misrepresentations, and I suppose that is the best he could do.

Of course, he started out with what we are hearing everywhere that the hacking was a criminal act and the emails were cherry picked. Ebell said that there actually is no proof of a hacker, but that it may just have been an internal whistleblower who was disgusted. That isn't something I had heard before, but it's a possibility too, I suppose.

Sue, I had also heard - before the Fox interview - that they're thinking more along the lines of a whistleblower or a whistleblower working with hackers.

Interesting, Marilyn.

Check THIS out Sue.

Can't display the page.

OK - now I'll have to think what I wanted you to see...

:)

Global warming is a get rich scam and it worked, gore will never have to worry about anything for the rest of his lifetime! All this damage the millions of American's are doing to the world and atmosphere, has anyone given thought about the spaceships and what they do to the atmosphere when they are sent up in space? They don't want us using arousals hairspray because of destroying the ozone what do the ships do at break neck speed and all that trash they leave floating around in space? We know we will be getting a weather change every time one goes up or comes down and never been let down by thinking that.

From the U.S. environmental protection agency:
Stratospheric Ozone
The stratosphere, or "good" ozone layer extends upward from about 6 to 30 miles and protects life on Earth from the sun's harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays. This natural shield has been gradually depleted by man-made chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). A depleted ozone shield allows more UV radiation to reach the ground, leading to more cases of skin cancer, cataracts, and other health and environmental problems.

Good point, Jackie. Big difference between a can of hairspray and a space ship. :-)

And now that we've got over 30 countries admitting that they seed the clouds and cause weather changes, doesn't that have some impact on the environment?

Guess the scientists aren't as smart as they thought - we are all human experiements, and when a disaster happens, they will go "uh oh" now what and then tweek it a bit and go again.