http://video.aol.co.uk/video-detail/iceberg-floats-past-new-zealand/1587291822

 wow.. impressive! I wonder if that has anything to do with global warming.. 

couldn't be global cooling.

Quote -  wow.. impressive! I wonder if that has anything to do with global warming.. 

I don't see how, considering that the global mean temperature has been dropping for at least 12 straight years now...

temperature has been goin up in the arctic though.. causing increased melting.. however.. my dilemma is, if it is indeed warmer, why didnt the icebergs melt before reaching NZ? 

Quote - temperature has been goin up in the arctic though..

Who fed you that line?

 i dont remember.. read it a long time ago, at several different sources.
but i did look up the temparature graphs after reading your message.. and all major respected sources for measuring global temperature indicate a slow but steady rise in temperature...
there was an anomalous dip in temperature over the course of 2007-2008 but unless this trend turns out to continue several years into the future a 1 year measurement like that is far to vague to say anything serious about the long run.

Rayraz,
I have no explanation, outside of deliberate fraud, about how anyone could examine the raw data and come to the conclusion that temperature is increasing...

And notice the distinct lack of solar data?

ice anyone???????

Cheers
GG

Did someone say fraud?

No, not fraud?

:b_shocked:

odd how these documents came out JUST before a major climate change conference
Odd how the emial circulating about them suggests folk ditch shares in renewable energy companies
These emails have not been verified as genuine.
Yes the Artic IS warming or the ice pack wouldn't have mellted os much last year.

Any of you remember/know the stuff the tobacco companies got up to back before it was finally hammered into folk that smoking DOES kill millions, hm?
Estimated death toll form smoking by middle of this century will be aorund 250 million, fyi. Makes the tyrants of last century look like second raters.
If the climate change sby 2 degrees C or more in a century, be it by man made or any other cause, the death toll will probably be in the billions, fyi. War over food/water will be spectacularly bad.

It's very funny how most oflk will accept what science tells them, but nto this issue. The reaosn is obvious.

And yes the solar data HAS been published and disproves that issue, for the moment (as always, the usuaal caveats appy in Science: to tbe best of our current knowledge. Which is not a bloody excuse to act like suicidal lemmings).

Ah, what's the use, like smokers who went on puffing even after being warned, and STILL talk crap about their addiction to this day, most folk won't learn until they suffer personally, though in this case, ti iwll be too late for all of us  :(

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm

This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

The UK's weather service projects that, unless there is an exceptionally cold spell before the end of the year, temperatures will be up on last year.

Climate sceptics had pointed out that the temperature rise appeared to have stalled in the last decade or so.

That was caused in part by the Pacific La Nina current, which cools the Earth.

But the influence of La Nina declined in the spring and the Met Office project that, barring a very cold December, this year will be the fifth warmest on record.

Other sources say it could even be the third warmest.

The last ten years have been in the top 15 warmest on record. And this summer the UK enjoyed temperatures higher than the long-term average.

Greens, Explain please:

1. How does a trace atmospheric gas reverse the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
2. Why does IPCC model assume that man made CO2 accumulates, while 'natural' CO2 dissipates?
3. Why does IPCC model apply directional vector to radiant heat dissipation?

These are fundamental impossibilities, and the 'scientists' involved in the AGW hoax consistently dodge attempting to reconcile these physical absurdities; instead, they have opted to mount a political/religious crusade using mass media driven hysteria and ridiculously false alarmist claims, neither of which is rooted in any known earth based scientific principle.

There are so many fallacies being propogated by the Greens that the whole concept is obviously a hoax. If it were true, they wouldn't need to resort to fearmongering:

1. doubling CO2 doubles heat absorption.
2. CO2 levels drive climate.
3. Earth's atmosphere acts as a greenhouse.
   etc., etc., etc.

Quote - Estimated death toll form smoking by middle of this century will be aorund 250 million, fyi. Makes the tyrants of last century look like second raters.

That's beans compared to the deaths caused by the greens. The DDT ban alone is directly responsible for at least twice that many deaths, and the greens have admitted that they knew it was a harmless chemical while they were lobbying for it's discontinuance.

Quote - If the climate change sby 2 degrees C or more in a century, be it by man made or any other cause, the death toll will probably be in the billions, fyi. War over food/water will be spectacularly bad.

I'll add that one to my list of fallacies/lies. Thanks!

Quote - It's very funny how most oflk will accept what science tells them, but nto this issue. The reaosn is obvious.

I find it tragic that, lacking any basis in real world science, that so many people support such an obvious hoax.
For instance, what qualitfies you to make an assessment of the science involved one way or the other?
Yet, here you are, mocking 'deniers'.

Quote - This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office.

They have said that for every year since 1991. 1 for 18 isn't very good record for predictions. Besides, what temperature record are you talking about?
The raw temperature data? or the 'adjusted' temperature data?
and the 'adjustments' are being done by the Hansen maniac at NASA.

Forget about predictions for the future. Let's look at past predictions and how they played out in the real world. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong; but this time, they are iron clad perfect... until they are found to be wrong again, and again, and again, and again.
When someone's predictions are wrong all the time, you would really have to be an ignorant asshole to continue to believe new predictions from the same source. Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of ignorant assholes in the world.

I can honestly say that I have never encountered anyone learned in my field of specialty that believes mankind is responsible for Earth's climate. I'd guess between 25 and 35 percent of my colleagues believe that there is a lasting change to global climate happening now (and about 50/50 for cooling/warming).
That translates, by my 'old fashioned' figurin' (all 'deniers' are idiot flat earthers, remember?); that about 12.5 to 17.5 % of legitimate researchers believe global warming is a serious issue; and ~0% believe there is anything we could do about it, even if it was happening.
I personally feel that anyone claiming Anthropogenic CO2 emmissions are responsible should be stripped of all academic credentials and sent back to elementary education (or sent to career retraining school).

Dvlenk6, what is your field of speciality?

Quote - odd how these documents came out JUST before a major climate change conference
Odd how the emial circulating about them suggests folk ditch shares in renewable energy companies These emails have not been verified as genuine.

Yes they have, both by the CRU and people on the outside who have been named within those Emails. Furthermore, its not just e-mails, its data and programs as well.

Its more likely that a whistleblower within the CRU has released those files and it is still even possible that one of the boffins like Phil Jones himself put those files on a unsecure server, because it is not the first time that this happend.

Still Jones has at least to answer for the FOIA's he refused and deleting data after such a request. Those FOIA requests have been documented and the content of the Emails confirm that Jones was not going to give access to that data, although university regulations and good science do require such requests to be granted.

One thing is sure, the science was far from settled.

LOL…automatically switching into cleanup mode is to be expected. The fact that it came out at all should be enough to make people stop and wonder. Many of us are very much aware that a bottlenecking of the truth has been going on and perpetrated for many years in an attempt to channel revenues into so-called “green” hands. Many very reputable scientists on the other side of the debate have been denied equal platform and openly ridiculed in order to silence the opposition. Very not in keeping with the “scientific method” of scientific inquiry and the thorough examination of all hypothesis before even being elevated to the status of workable theory.  To be apropos with the analogy, it is pretty much what the tobacco companies were doing as well…silencing the opposition and misdirecting as they continued to kill people with their cash cow. 

Of course the entire pro anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd is downplaying and trying desperately to minimize the effects of what is now being referred to as “ClimateGate” and are flimsily trying to redirect the focus off the contents of the emails themselves and onto the act of the hacking theft as if we didn’t already know it’s illegal. It took CNN six days to recognize the importance of this international scandal, notwithstanding the fact that the scientists involved are tied to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as to the White House and Congressional Democrats.

“These emails have not been verified as genuine.”

 “A university* spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.”

• • My asterisk: university here refers to The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.

BBC

“Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy. The ever-clueless mainstream media can and will ignore this until it's forced upon them as front-page news, and then most will join the alarmists on the denial merry-go-round.

But here's what’s undeniable: If a divergence exists between measured temperatures and those derived from dendrochronological data after (circa) 1960, then discarding only the post-1960 figures is disingenuous, to say the least. The very existence of a divergence betrays a potential serious flaw in the process by which temperatures are reconstructed from tree-ring density. If it's bogus beyond a set threshold, then any honest man of science would instinctively question its integrity prior to that boundary. And only the lowliest would apply a hack in order to produce a desired result.

And to do so without declaring as such in a footnote on every chart in every report in every study in every book in every classroom on every website that such a corrupt process is relied upon is not just a crime against science, it’s a crime against mankind.”

“…CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined.

…We know they've been lying all along, and now we can prove it. It's time to bring sanity back to this debate. 

It's time for the First IPCC Reassessment Report.”

American Thinker

Personally I’m sitting back and watching this story unfold with amusement and fascination despite Cap and Trade (eluded to as Cap & Tax) law passage.

NewsBusters

Quote - Dvlenk6, what is your field of speciality?

Optics

I've just gone through a load of papers following Quest's link (News Busters) and the whole thing is horrific. It would seem the main news broadcasters - including the BBC and ITN - have chosen to ignore what is the 'biggest hoax on the American people' (if not the whole world) and that so called scientists have been lying to us and altering data for decades.

But then checkout my sig.

Thanks Dvlenik6 ! ;-)

Ah, the truth of the matter shows itself as it always does, "It's all the fault of the Evil Greens!"
fine, so be it, you've made yer choice based on politics as wlays there is no point arguing this: enjoy the consequences.

Quote - Ah, the truth of the matter shows itself as it always does, "It's all the fault of the Evil Greens!"
fine, so be it, you've made yer choice based on politics as wlays there is no point arguing this: enjoy the consequences.

Hogwash!

The Greens will be thrown under the bus for this, wich is actually rather sad, alternative energy is on itself not a bad thing, proper care for the enviroment is not bad at all, and so on.

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and this is excactly what Jones and Mann did with the "Trick to hide the decline"

Don't misunderstand, this is not about the lack of rising temperatures in the past 10 years wich can not be explained by the computermodels and the globalwarming theory. Its about the failure of treerings to show a rise in temperatures where our thermometers did from about 1980 (or 1960 in Keith Briffa's case).

Its about a failure of the theory that treerings are a thermometer of temperatures and climate-conditions in the past.

Now why did they need this theory? To show that the temperature rise in the 20th century was unprecedented. But there was still the Medival Warm Period and The Little Ice Age, in order to weaken those they selected tree-data (trees that have special growing conditions) sets that showed little of the MWP and LIA, and that is where the problems began because they started to divert from real world temperatures in the 1980'ties.

In order to set this straight, Mann and his ilk stopped the data-plots around 1980 and replaced the missing treerings with real world temperatures. They knew that they would get in trouble for this if it was found out, and that is the point where they entrenched themselves, retreated to their ivory towers and making up all kinds of bogus stories why the data and the methods used where not going to be released.

And now we found out, and is shown what sceptics suspected for years. The theory does not work.

But what drives all this is money. Scientists can get all sorts of grants if they come up with research projects for popular theories. In this case the have-nots are the ones who poo-poo global warming, and are ridiculed for saying so.
 And if the people are happy with the science then they'll happily fork out in taxes to 'help save the planet'. Sure, there are some good practises being rolled out; recycling, home insutlation and all that, but we are paying for them one way or another.

I would like to drop this on your collective laps though. A few years ago a guy in the USA proposed that Airliners were actually helping to slow the rise in global temperatures by dint of the fact that they spew tones of exhaust particles into the higher atmosphere. These particles reflect sunlight back into space, the obvious benefit being that the temperature on the ground stays reletively low.

His problem was how to prove this theory. He needed every airliner in the country to stay grounded long enough for the particles to disipate and let the sunlight reach the lower atmosphere. He lucked out in a way it seems when for three or four days the entire USA was completely devoid of air traffic. Sure enough, the ground temperature rose and most of the country was bathed in glorious sunshine.

The date? 11 September 2001.

Attached Link: Pack Ice

To those with opened eyes and minds the truth is self evident… “scientific” claims based on cooked data notwithstanding…as often is the case one can follow the toxic money trail.

 LOL…indeed MalenySteve as it should be…a refreshing scene.

But what drives all this is money. Scientists can get all sorts of grants if they come up with research projects for popular theories.

Chris has very nearly hit the bull's eye.  Follow the money to understand today's politics and sadly now some in science cater to the profitable also.   Responsible stewardship of the world and environment is a good thing; but, to taint good science and data to achieve favorable results and sway public opinion is bad, really really bad. 

Is there a current climate trend in rising temperatures?  Yes, probably.  Is it *"anthropogenic global warming (AGW)" * (being accelerated by the influence of man)?  That seems to be seriously questionable in light of the recent disclosures.  Personally, I think man is doing little to cause global temperature rise.  I think it is a natural cycle.    Will some beloved plant and animal species go extinct?  Yes, probably.  Can humans  adapt?  I hope so.

My personal thought experiment is the warming will continue.  The warming changes could cause  hiccups in tectonic plate movements resulting in increased volcanic activity.  The release of additional SO2 and ash will cause a cooling effect and the cycle starts anew.  Will any of us live long enough to confirm or disprove my theory?  NO.

Anyhow, back to the opening point.  The easiest way to get to the truth in the current discussion is to determine who has the most to gain monetarily and power-wise by selling anthropogenic global warming to the world's population.   ????   I don't know.  Maybe you can.  Think global and outside the envelop for this answer.

I now turn the soap box back to the better minds of this forum.

I've no political axe to grind. All I have to share is my personal experience, and maybe you would consider that "apocraphal". I live in a part of the U.S. that has a climate much like that of London, U.K., but with rainfall closer to Manchester's  The last three years I've beeen harvesting ripe tomatoes in my backyard garden up until the date I am writing this. I still have tomatoes on the vine right now, and no frost so far.

We've had disgustingly wet Sumemr-less years so far

anyway, a poster above brought up garbage about DDT, proving this is all about political bias.
If folk actually bothered to check the facts about DDT, rather than listen to corporate-sponsored places like JunkScience, they'd know that DDT was never banned for use against malaria in Africa, but that it's no damn use against malaria in the way the shills bleat about it (the real fact is the agro chem companies want ot sell it in vast bulk again, and THAT is where the toxicity problem does arise, cause the cretins used it in such enormous volumes for crops, especially cash crops)
.
Resistance to DDT was already showing by 1957. Thus it's only useful for safeguarding houses (nets and wlal sprays), or by very well integrated massive public health schemes in which DDT is only one part and only a short term one at that.
If you doubt me, go check with the W.H.O rather than JunkScience who are funded by Exxon and tobacco companies (you can check that you know..and tobacco companies are about the worst evil we've seen as their product's death toll is greater than Hitler, Stalin and Mao's combined).

To stop malaria, you need a vaccine, a very dman difficult thing to do, or improve the stability of thos enations so they can work on major public systems to drain marshes, build more hospitals etc.

Yes, FOLLOW TH EMONEY!! To Exxona nd others who'se wealth vastly outweights that of the environmental lobby which you blatantly ignore ;)
One Exxon chief left with a $400 million severance package, if that doens't wake you up to who owns you, your vote, and your countries, nothing will.

meh, folk should stick to art.

Silverblade63,

Don't drink the red koolaid,
The red koolaid is bad.**
**

I’m both amazed and alarmed at the same time that people can be so disarmingly gullible, reminiscent of naive cattle being driven to slaughter with little coercing. In this light it doesn’t take much to see why civilization is in so much trouble.
 
George Monbiot (the face of green activism):
 
“...most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial...

... Pretending that this isn't a real crisis isn't going to make it go away.”

The Guardian

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’

I’m happy to see that some sense of rationalization is finally setting in but to think that merely getting rid of Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf will suddenly make the IPCC a trustworthy conglomerate of thieves and liars leaves much to be desired. No amount of damage control will make it go away. Truth is truth and the pseudo science has been exposed. Hopefully the money trail will dry up as well.

“...Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?...
 
Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.”

ABC33/40

"Gore and Congressional Democrats are in complete support of any greenhouse gas reduction or Cap and Trade legislation that would tax industry, increase tax revenues, and send huge profits to alternative energy companies. Al Gore is estimated to make over 100 million dollars through Generation Investment Management if the Cap and Trade Bill passes the U.S. Senate, which is expected to come to the floor at the end of the year."

Global Warming a multibillion dollar scam

“Climate alarm is also an international multibillion-dollar business, providing jobs, careers, funding, travel and conferences to a multitude. Any questioning of the alarm threatens their livelihoods. The more alarm, the more funding they get and the more secure their jobs.

The high church of global warming is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is funded by governments to promote the belief that mankind is changing the climate dangerously. Its “technical summaries” select evidence for global warming and reject counter-evidence. Its “summaries for policy makers”, couched in scientific language, are expressions of dogma, telling the faithful what to believe. “

Business Day

Climategate Master Criminal Phil Jones Collected $22.6 Million in Grants
 

 YouTube video : Al Gore’s lies Exposed by congress

This came in just a few hours ago:

“It has been reported worldwide that the Himalayan glaciers are retreating fast due to global warming. But now a report released by India’s Ministry of Environment last week claims that the picture of fast retreating glaciers is simply not accurate.”

Dawn Media Group

Other interesting read:

Climategate spells end to the false science of climate change

Related Headlines across the board:

Prison Planet


 

And the majority of rabid skeptics also supported the Iraq invasion, and often still believe Saddam had WMD ready to fire...you'd think they'd have learned, eh? ;)
pull the other one, sunshine, it's got bells on!
Again, this is politics, not facts that drives this. It shouldn't be discussed here.

When Obama said something about "Restoring science in its proper place" i still had some hope, but no.

Quote - ...Again, this is politics, not facts that drives this. It shouldn't be discussed here.

You are right, it (man made climate change) is politics, and has nothing to do with either facts or science.
Glad you recognize that; but, there is no rule here that says politics can not be discussed.

I thinking of writing a book, "Green Tea and Red Koolaid; Diet for Disaster"
What do you think?

I am sooo glad this thread has not devolved into name calling and intolerance.  Instead there seems to be a good healthy exchange of info and reasoning behind formed opinions.

@ Quest

My question is who is pouring the money into the politico systems, media and scientific community that has the resources and clout to drown out previous power structures?  Who can play hard ball against fossil fuel magnates and governments?

Is it big oil?   Do they see an end to oil reserves and want to be the big wigs once alternate energy is the norm?  Or is it some other group behind the scenes of power that are only shadows to us?  Is it really about saving the earth or is it more about saving someones bank account?  I think it is about the bank accounts.  But whose name is on the account.  Follow the money.

Skiillgee,
It's fascism; that is, the merger of big business and government; or more precisely, big government sponsoring and controlling big business (and large national groups like labor unions and professional guilds). What it boils down to is that it is our money (taxpayers) that is propagandizing all of this illegal ponzi scheme hoax.
Take Generalissimo Electric, for example. They will control the U.S. 'carbon trade' market w/ hefty 'service fees' drawn off of each transaction. That's billions, if not trillions of dollars earned for doing absolutely nothing. It makes sense, of course, that they are willing to turn their media outlets (NBC and all it's subsidiaries) loose to propagandize the ideas that will lead to their new multibillion dollar cash cow (at our expense).
It's worth noting that  Jeffery Immelt (CEO of GE) is one of the current administration's chief energy advisors. The man who's energy company stands to make billions of dollars of (untaxed) profit is advising the government on public energy policy (and providing biased media propaganda that would make Joseph Goebbels proud).

'Big Oil' profits are a mere fraction of what governments take out of fuel sales.
Exxon, for example, explores, drills, extracts, refines, ships, and retails petroleum and makes about 5 cents per gallon profit. The U.S. Federal Government does nothing, and makes about 18.4 cents per gallon (state median tax is ~25 cents / gallon).
The governments are the villains, Exxon (and everybody else) is the victim of price gouging by the governments. The FEDs take 3 times more than the companies, the states 4 times more; and neither of them contributes anything whatsoever to the business.
Note: Exxon also pays almost as much to the federal government in Income tax as it's profits equal. Apparently 300% of 'obscene big oil profits' isn't enough to satisfy the government price gougers.

Profit per gallon:
'big bad evil greedy lying murdering oil tyrants' : $0.05
Federal Government - $0.184 + income tax equal to company profit.
State Governments: $0.25 + applicable state income taxation.

So who really are the villains in this scenario?
I know who I think is the villains.

You see, left wing radicals have to have a villain to focus the hatred and anger of their base against in order to rally support in the public sector to take over private resources.
The villain de jour is 'big bad evil health insurance companies' because the fascists are now in the process of finalizing the nationalization of the U.S. medical and insurance industries. Doctors were hit too (remember those press conferences talking about pediatricians ripping kids tonsils out for cash, and surgeons chopping off diabetic's feet?).
When the Taxman-Malarkey bill (aka tax and raid) hits the senate debate you will see a huge spike of negative press aimed at the 'big bad evil energy companies' again (like there was leading up to the house vote).
When H.R. 875 rolls around, it will be the 'big bad evil food companies' that are the villain.
Etc., etc., etc.

A bit off topic, but...
Does it piss anybody else off that both the man who chairs the committee which writes the U.S. tax code (Charlie Rangel, D-NY) and the chief officer that enforces said tax code (Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the U.S. Treasury) are tax cheats?

You really don’t want to get me started on the entirely different issue of the Iraq war and Iraq as far as I know, has nothing to do with defrauding the world into believing in anthropogenic global warming, the issue at hand. Besides, attempting to change the topic will not bolster your fanatical pro global warming argument especially in light of all the mounting evidence to the contrary…sunshine ;-)

“Again, this is politics, not facts that drives this. It shouldn't be discussed here.”

As far as facts go you certainly haven’t produced any. And not to confuse you with the facts, perhaps you haven’t been following along with this thread, this might come as a shock to you, but the ClimateGate scandal is precisely about how the facts have been manipulated. The facts for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as they stand now are proving to be contrived and are most certainly politically driven. Any attempt to funnel vast amounts of money into a political system (e.g. the UN…IPCC) that perpetuates the fear mongering to control world economies and peoples, some may even go as far as saying to redistribute the wealth on a global scale is without a doubt politically driven.

Green is the new and modern world “gold rush” color. Let us be clear, no one disputes global warming per say. Most believe that it is cyclic and naturally occurring and the earth (and also other planets in the solar system) has phased in and out of cycles for milleniums. And let’s face it…if a naturally occurring cycle becomes full blown…for people to try and stop it would be like one person pissing into a volcano to put the fire out. It is the unfounded assumptions of AGW that gets the ire. Some studies propose that the human input into global warming is about 3%. Most Americans will concede and say that we as a nation being one of the largest consumers should not be oil dependent especially on unstable and unfriendly countries. We have plenty of bio fuel resources and the technology right within our shores to provide for ourselves but there are extreme political factions at play that would like to prohibit the expansion of those resources for one reason or another which I’ll not get into here but you are welcome to research for yourself. Consider that many industrialized countries use nuclear power to subsidize their energy needs but we, the nation that introduced nuclear power to the world, albeit abruptly, are restricted, ask yourself why.

Clean alternative energy sources is the way to go but the technology as it stands now is cost prohibitive to replace the relatively cheap infrastructure already in place which supplies us with our present needs. Corporate conglomerates, financial institutions and investment brokers hear the clamor and see a future in alternative sources and are starting to appropriate funds for research to colleges, universities, scientific institutions and even other countries. This is where the scheming and money grabbing starts and the fear mongering ensues. People positioned in high places with powerful contacts see a wide opened field to capitalize from and thus start laying down their own ground rules, and once set, by which all others must abide by. And this is where the United Nations (IPCC) has placed itself with the aid of wealthy backers and governments.

Dvlenk6, please, don’t go there…I’m seething at the hypocrisy and arrogance. Should I still be waiting for change? ;-)

Quote - ...Dvlenk6, please, don’t go there…I’m seething at the hypocrisy and arrogance. Should I still be waiting for change? ;-)

OK, back on topic.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from the non debate

Quote - None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.

– Dr. Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and lead author of the UN IPCC’s Scientific Assessment of Climate Change.

Quote - I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being
scientifically unsound.

• Dr. Chris Landsea, resignation letter to the UN IPCC.
  Full resignation letter is HERE.
  NOTE the second comment in the comments section: "Good, I'm glad he's leaving. We don't need to read climatology papers to know that climate is changing far faster than the simulation have been predicting." - Which is the exact opposite of the real world data that has been collected.

Quote - We must abandon scientific method and act on faith.

• Al Gore :blink:
  I wonder if Gore is a member here, since he is so adept at photoshopping satellite images...

*Again, this is politics, not facts that drives this. It shouldn't be discussed here.

*This is an OT thread. It's civilised and well written and I won't close it down just because it's politics. Nobody has to read this.

I have to agree with "The Bryster", not so long ago these kinds of threads would turn into a flame-fest within hours, sometimes even minutes.

Ok, well if folk wish to keep it political..doesn't the fact that the head of the UK's "British Nation Party"  is determined to go to the climate treaty as a naysayer, and shares your beliefs, make you PAUSE for a moment, hm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin

no point posting further. Waste of time.

**@**silverblade33

Two wrongs does not make one right, ok?****
**

"odd how these documents came out JUST before a major climate change conference"

Interesting that your cynicism isn’t applied the other way – to the deluge of climate alarmist stories breaking in the run-up to Copenhagen. You soak up that barrage without question, yet the one story that pulls out the rug you regard with grave suspicion.

"These emails have not been verified as genuine."

Other than an out and out formal admission by University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU), they have been so verified. Many people directly involved in the email exchanges have come forward to offer verification, and not one single example of falsehood, not from the emails nor the code nor the data, has been claimed by CRU after more than a week.

"Yes the Artic IS warming or the ice pack wouldn't have mellted os much last year."

Arctic sea ice melted less last year than the year before, and it melted less this year than last year:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

2007 was an extreme anomaly and the ice extent is now back within the decadal norm. The following page gives some interesting context to arctic sea ice conditions:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/#more-7368

Indeed, the arctic has been taking an awfully long time to conform to scientific predictions of meltage, as this archive snippet from 1934 shows:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00815F6395A107A93CAAB178AD85F408385F9&scp=308&sq=arctic%20melting&st=cse

"If the climate change sby 2 degrees C or more in a century, be it by man made or any other cause, the death toll will probably be in the billions, fyi."

This is likely true. The historical record shows that low temperatures are disastrous for humanity, with millions dying from famine, pestilence and war, with whole cultures collapsing. Let’s hope that those predicting global cooling are wrong.

"This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office."

** **

And from which outfit does the UK Met Office derive much of its information? Look up HadCRU if you’re curious. You need to know just how deep the Met Office is into chanting the AGW mantra before you go quoting them as evidence. The Met Office is part of the UK Ministry of Defence – it’s a government body trotting out the establishment political line (just like the BBC).

From the leaked emails of CRU, we have the private, behind the scenes opinion of one of the IPCC lead authors, Kevin Trenberth :

“… where the heck is global warming?... 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 truth is these muppets took La Nina and El Nino into account when they made their IPCC predictions of sustained warming, but the predictions were falsified by observation. Their (peer reviewed!) theories and models are all wrong, and they haven’t got a clue what drives climate.

The icebergs off of New Zealand today broke away from the Ross ice shelf back in 2000, and that calving wasn’t related to “global warming”. You have to go all the way back to 1931 for a previous example. This should tell you that icebergs off of New Zealand are nothing new and predate significant fossil fuel derived CO2.

*"Ok, well if folk wish to keep it political..doesn't the fact that the head of the UK's "British Nation Party"  is determined to go to the climate treaty as a naysayer, and shares your beliefs, make you PAUSE for a moment, hm?"

*Oh, nice. Well, if you want to play that game - here's Mr Griffin's view on certain recent events:
+++
"As such, the BNP is committed to withdrawing from the illegal and immoral wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the prosecution for war crimes of all Westminster officials who deliberately tricked this nation into those conflicts which have cost billions and at least 300 British lives."
+++
Sound familiar, silverblade33?

Now that I've called your cheap-shot, I'll raise you another. Guess who rants about the damage from global warming caused by Western nations:

• Sheikh Ayman al Zawahiri, second in command of al Qaeda.

Cheesy.

PJF
That New York Times link can only be read by subscribing or paying for it. 

Let's keep this very, very civil lest the mods lock it.  No one is a Nazi or moron for their opinions and views. 

I would like for someone who remains unswayed by recent revelations of slanted data voice in with their reasoning without feeling threatened personally.   I should say that anyone holding to AGW (human induced warming) needs a better defense than pointing out big oil and tobacco company's misinformation in the past.  Pointing out falsehoods by one side does not make falsehoods from another more or less truthful.   Does that make sense?

Quote - no point posting further. Waste of time.

Probably for the best. You are just making an ass out of yourself. Kind of embarrassing, really...

Quote - "no point posting further. Waste of time."

Probably for the best. You are just making an ass out of yourself. Kind of embarrassing, really...

I'm out.

*"That New York Times link can only be read by subscribing or paying for it."

That's why I said "snippet". Enough can be gleaned from that to determine that scientific tales of melting doom have been around for ages. Oooh, there's another one out today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6938356.ece

You'd think there was a climate / tax conference due or something.

BTW, I agree about keeping things civil, but if someone starts throwing desperate straw men like Nick Griffin into the argument they deserve ruthless ridicule.

Silverblade’s inability to stay on topic and desperate grasping at straws is a sign of avoidance reactance and is as close to an admission that he has closed himself off to the reality of the facts presented in front of him and therefore is unable to validate or justify his argument concerning anthropogenic global warming which he fervently repudiated in favor for. In short, unable to cope with the facts, or in this case the lack thereof, he has joined his brethrens in a state of total denial, the symptoms of which has manifested themselves as spinning and fabrication of off-beat confabulations. This reaction only serves to justly irritate and irk those that have taken time and put effort to come forth in good faith to challenge his baseless assertions in the spirit of a legitimate discussion based on the facts as they presently stand.

As was quoted in the opening volleys: 

 “Clamoring alarmists can and will spin this until they're dizzy.”

Marc Sheppard Nov. 25, 2009 “CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered”…”American thinker”

Well this is what I hoped wouldn't happen. Regardless of who said what,  we don't need personal attacks.
Thread locked.