Global Warming Science, or Pure Advocacy? Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
- Status
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Sorry, but that's not the impression I get from the emails.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Last edited:
Will the Australian government be the first fallout from this scandal?
Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.
Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.
Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.
The Australian Liberal party is currently a basketcase, with a little less than half the sitting members being climate denying dinosaurs. Currently it is heading for political annihilation in the election that it will inevitably loseand lose badly if it runs on a climate denial platform.
As to the comment in bold about the government being forced to dissolve, that's incorrect. The Australian Constitution allows for what is called a double dissolution. This can only take place if the Prime Minister calls for one, and certain conditions must apply. Specifically:
In the case of a double dissolution being called, the entire Senate comes up for re-election. Usually only half the Senate is up for re-election at every federal election. The double dissolution process is designed to break deadlocks in which the government of the day does not control the Senate and has its legislative programme constantly stymied by the opposition party. This is what is currently happening with the government's climate change legislation.
It is up to the Prime Minister to call such an election. In the current situation, he'd be mad not to do so, because the government will most likely gain seats in Parliament at the expense of the Liberal party, and will end up in control of the Senate, with the Liberal/National coalition consigned to the political wilderness for an extra term or two at least.
As to the comment in bold about the government being forced to dissolve, that's incorrect. The Australian Constitution allows for what is called a double dissolution. This can only take place if the Prime Minister calls for one, and certain conditions must apply. Specifically:
Section 57 said:
In the case of a double dissolution being called, the entire Senate comes up for re-election. Usually only half the Senate is up for re-election at every federal election. The double dissolution process is designed to break deadlocks in which the government of the day does not control the Senate and has its legislative programme constantly stymied by the opposition party. This is what is currently happening with the government's climate change legislation.
It is up to the Prime Minister to call such an election. In the current situation, he'd be mad not to do so, because the government will most likely gain seats in Parliament at the expense of the Liberal party, and will end up in control of the Senate, with the Liberal/National coalition consigned to the political wilderness for an extra term or two at least.
that section actually goes further james but the full section has only ever been used once that i know of. If the senate STILL refuses to pass the bill after a DD election then both houses will hold a joint sitting and vote as one and if the bill passes this simple majority of both houses it will be taken to have been passed by both houses and become law. I think this section frightens the senate the most because unless the majority is very slim in the house the numbers from the house of reps will be enough to overwhelm the senate numbers easerly (i cant rember exact numbers for the house but the senate is what? 40?)
And Mad, james is right. The nats are currently a compleate joke and the libs look like being anhalated if this continues. There is something like 80% public surport for SOME sort of bill and the goverment has already shown it has tried to negotiate in good faith. The oposition has backed down from its own deal which has shown they cant be trusted and the goverment will have what it needs by the end of the week at most. Personally i would prefer this to be a DD election but even if it ends up being a normal election they will lose MASSIVE amounts of seats.
No one has any patients with an oposition which deals and then backs down, if an election was called tomorow we would go to the poles with an oposition whos front bench is what? 4 people now? (Turnbull, Bishop, Pine and Hockey no make that 5 because Ian Mcfarlian is standing by his leader also) and with no Senate leadership team at all. Not to mention no united policy on ANYTHING. No matter WHAT issue that election was fought on they would be destroyed, however if its an election over an issue where there is 80% surport AGAINST the oposition? We could see the Greens sitting on the oposition benches if they dont get there act together. Hell we could see family first because there wont be enough libs left to occupy even the front bench
And Mad, james is right. The nats are currently a compleate joke and the libs look like being anhalated if this continues. There is something like 80% public surport for SOME sort of bill and the goverment has already shown it has tried to negotiate in good faith. The oposition has backed down from its own deal which has shown they cant be trusted and the goverment will have what it needs by the end of the week at most. Personally i would prefer this to be a DD election but even if it ends up being a normal election they will lose MASSIVE amounts of seats.
No one has any patients with an oposition which deals and then backs down, if an election was called tomorow we would go to the poles with an oposition whos front bench is what? 4 people now? (Turnbull, Bishop, Pine and Hockey no make that 5 because Ian Mcfarlian is standing by his leader also) and with no Senate leadership team at all. Not to mention no united policy on ANYTHING. No matter WHAT issue that election was fought on they would be destroyed, however if its an election over an issue where there is 80% surport AGAINST the oposition? We could see the Greens sitting on the oposition benches if they dont get there act together. Hell we could see family first because there wont be enough libs left to occupy even the front bench
well i have never seen that before, the 7:30 report running on a friday for a political coverage insted of stateline (i belive it may have run due to natural disasters but that could have been ABC news rather than the 7:30 report). Further more (and much more surprising than the ABCs program shedualing) is that i have NEVER seen a party leader and that parties senate leader at eachothers throats on national TV. I dont think that even happened when Lathum imploded. Unbelivable
Comprehension, is at issue.count said:
We also have the actual published stuff, over years now, in public, and can compare it with the published criticism of it and the arguments made by its critics over those same years.geoff said:
The vast left-wing conspiracy interpretation of this stuff requires at least some evidence of its having had some effect, don't you think?
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Bullshit. We can read. And your MO is to think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is either dishonest or stupid. It's tiresome...
You mean like the shrinking of the North Pole's ice and Antarctic ice caps, or are this satellite photos doctored as well? How about the losses of biodiversity in the arctic region, oh I'm guessing biologist are also part of this conspiracy? How about massive longer term droughts and the growth of deserts in China, oh yeah the Chinese are in on the conspiracy as well!
or polar bears wandering into towns looking for food
No that just liberal tree hugging hippies dress up as polar bears trying to scare people into believing global warming is real.
Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked
You will get my statement if you know the difference between "blind faith" and "rely".
English is a context sensitive language I trust you know. If not, don't worry about it. Enjoy your bliss. :bugeye:
You will get my statement if you know the difference between "blind faith" and "rely".
English is a context sensitive language I trust you know. If not, don't worry about it. Enjoy your bliss. :bugeye:
countezero
Registered Senior Member
I do not think posters are making this a referendum on global warming. Or, at least, I am not. I've said from the beginning that I do not know or care to comment on the overall accuracy of warming claims, some of which, as you note (mentioning the caps) are irrefutable.
All I am claiming is that these emails show at the least disturbing groupthink and at the worst intentional collusion, and were it not about global warming, were it about the invasion of Iraq let's say, I am willing to bet you would agree. The idea that climatologists would not consciously or unconsciously have a bias to push something or reach conclusions that give their field its funding and reason for being seems self-evident.
Like the head of the finance company that recently claimed to be doing God's work, the scientists may actually believe what they did or appeared to have done was honest and noble. But that does not mean we have to agree with them. In general, both sides of this debate have devolved into nastiness, a reality which I think occurred, largely because of the money involved.
More Fallout: Is Cap and Trade Dead?
Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.
Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.
At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.
The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars.
Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.
At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.
The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.
At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars.
Copenhagen was always going to be a non-starter.
The global output of CO2 has increased by 29%, in the last decade.
That means "nobody really cares" about whether CO2 levels (not CO2 the plant-food) can change climate. Nobody cares because everybody believes the "danger" is at least a hundred years away.
None of the "solutions" like ETS or cap&trade were ever going to work - they were meant to be a starter, but they haven't started yet. They usually get altered to benefit corporations and large-scale polluters (can anyone list a scheme that will actually reduce output rather than just let businesses purchsse "the right to pollute"?).
The biggest laugh is the idea, promoted by the FOX mavens, that it's all collusion and bullshit.
Yes, the glaciers are colluding to melt and vanish rapidly; the oceans are plotting to stop absorbing CO2; water tables are refusing to recover from overexploitation; rivers are drying up and refusing to cooperate with "progress".
And, the scientists who are keeping track of all the changes, are lying so they get more money; they want an increase to 0.0001% of the total science budget (up from 0.00005% or so). This money is what climate science and all the collusion is really about....
The whole concept of humans being "concerned" about the future is a real crack-up, because it's so obviously not true. We don't care about the future because we know we won't be in it - we "hope" the next generation will be all good, but that's about as far as it goes (the level of concern for the future, remember?).
The global output of CO2 has increased by 29%, in the last decade.
That means "nobody really cares" about whether CO2 levels (not CO2 the plant-food) can change climate. Nobody cares because everybody believes the "danger" is at least a hundred years away.
None of the "solutions" like ETS or cap&trade were ever going to work - they were meant to be a starter, but they haven't started yet. They usually get altered to benefit corporations and large-scale polluters (can anyone list a scheme that will actually reduce output rather than just let businesses purchsse "the right to pollute"?).
The biggest laugh is the idea, promoted by the FOX mavens, that it's all collusion and bullshit.
Yes, the glaciers are colluding to melt and vanish rapidly; the oceans are plotting to stop absorbing CO2; water tables are refusing to recover from overexploitation; rivers are drying up and refusing to cooperate with "progress".
And, the scientists who are keeping track of all the changes, are lying so they get more money; they want an increase to 0.0001% of the total science budget (up from 0.00005% or so). This money is what climate science and all the collusion is really about....
The whole concept of humans being "concerned" about the future is a real crack-up, because it's so obviously not true. We don't care about the future because we know we won't be in it - we "hope" the next generation will be all good, but that's about as far as it goes (the level of concern for the future, remember?).
Last edited:
I disagree, I see no evidence of that.
Fortunately I have to agree, once politics, ideology and money get involved truth is lost or at least unbiased well thought out action is lost, I would prefer geoengineering as at least as strongly developed as low emissions economies, but the tree huggers would never go for messing with their beloved gaia goddess anymore then denialist would go for it simply because they don't believe it necessary. Global warming in all likelihood is way past the point of no return, cutting CO2 emissions will not be enough now, we need to actually take control of the climate.
Trust Faux News to report irresponsibly, and present things without context.
And as far as record breaking cold weather goes? Please. Anybody who has done even basic research into the issues can tell you that it's about an increase in variance as well as an increase in means.
And as far as record breaking cold weather goes? Please. Anybody who has done even basic research into the issues can tell you that it's about an increase in variance as well as an increase in means.
You cannot comprehend, though.count said:
If you are looking for collusion and groupthink in the climate debate, there's a lot of it on display - one way to track it is with the "temperature has always driven CO2 concentration" argument, a little self-applied label the groupthinkers often affix to their foreheads at the behest of the openly colluding media influence peddlers.
And your confusion of yourself with a host of people, this royal "we" that I allegedly disparage, is none of my doing.
countezero
Registered Senior Member
Actually, I can. I just don't agree with your bullshit. Hence your confusion. You think you are right 100 percent of the time. It's not possible anyone can read the same thing you do and reach a different conclusion. So whenever that happens, you make it about them and not about facts.
Elsewhere, I've lost count of the times you post antecedents or links to things that do not even remotely claim what you think they do (I would mention them again, but why bore everyone else?). So whose comprehension is really at issue?
Oh, wait you don't answer questions, either. So it's probably best that I just ignore you. You're not worth the powder.
There is. On both sides. I said as much. It's part of the reason why I typically don't follow the debate and don't care about it.
- Status