Home / Culture and Society / Climategate Begins to Claim Casualties

Climategate Begins to Claim Casualties

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As the "Climategate" scandal begins to finally break into the global media, we're beginning to see a backlash against the academics involved in the efforts to edit data and shape the debate on global climate change.

The first major casualty appears to be Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia who headed up the Climate Research Unit and was the leading figure in the email discussions at the center of this controversy. Despite attempting to deny any wrongdoing for the past week, Jones has now "stepped aside" from his position heading the CRU while the University conducts an investigation.

Penn State professor and Director of the Earth Science Center Michael Mann is also the subject of an academic investigation in relation to his role in the email exchanges. Mann has been one of the most outspoken advocates of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and has come under substantial criticism for his "hockey stick" model of global warming.

Meanwhile further skeptical reaction has contributed to the resignation of five members of the Australian parliament in objection to the passage of "cap and trade" legislation in that country. They doubt the value of sacrificing Australia's relatively strong economy for an increasingly discredited theory of climate change.

At this point Cap and Trade remains on the agenda for the US Congress and President Obama still plans to attend the Copenhagen meeting on climate change, but as skepticism grows a lot more than the jobs and reputations of a few academics may be riding on climategate.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • Arch Conservative

    I prefer Cilmaquiddick to Climategate.

    Phil Jones is gone and more to come?

    It’s official, the fat man is in the water and swimming for shore.

  • Mark

    Penn State professor and Director of the Earth Science Center Michael Mann is also the subject of an academic investigation in relation to his role in the email exchanges.

    the original reporting — you decide

  • Mark,

    Interesting. Yes, the emails in question will be studied, but there seems to be no indication that Mann or his research is under scrutiny. His and others’ climate research maintains its acceptance and support by most scientific bodies concerned with climate change.

    The Australian parliament resignations reflect the usual dollars and cents concerns and have no bearing on the veracity of climate change research or its conclusions.

    As worst, Professor Jones may be guilty of over-zealousness or, perhaps, unreasoned panic regarding his efforts. That changes nothing. The earth is still heating up, and the cause is most likely man made greenhouse gases.


  • Baritone, I suggest you read some of the emails before dismissing them as you have. I was skeptical at first as well, with much the same viewpoint you express, but after reading more of them I just can’t explain away some of the stuff that Jones was involved in.

    BTW, the Aussie parliament just voted to kill its cap and trade bill.


  • Arch Conservative

    Isn’t it deliciously ironic that the Al Gore invented the internet and now it is that very internet, through the Climategate emails, that is being used to bring down the Global Warming hoax?

  • None of this refutes the science. The perhaps stupid acts of one or more individuals to skew some numbers does not obviate the reality.


  • I just posted it to my “Mad Scientist” article. Jones has stepped down as director.

  • anthony

    Sure,none of this changes anything,the theory is so sound its not worth questioning. This is the problem, we are encouraged to cease entertaining any bit of skepticism…that is horrible. The fact is climate change is a constant, as is the recycling of materials in volcanic eruptions. The climate has been almost unprecedentedly stable the past 5 to 10,000 years,of course it will change. The worse case scenario of global warming calls for a 6 degree rise in temperature Celsius, we are to believe parts of Earth will be uninhabitable. Nonsense. Read of Earths history, there were MANY periods where the world was 6 degrees Celsius warmer than present, and the fact is life flourished,and that is with over 150 percent the quantity of CO2 than is present today.

    If the Earth is on a warming course, it is far more likely to be due to solar activity. It is a fact our star is overwhelmingly the dominant driver of our climate. Look up sunspot activity and earths temperature trend, there is an obvious correlation.

    Anyway, lets talk greenhouse gas, CO2 is nothing compared to Water Vapor. Water vapor is the MOST potent greenhouse gas known. While we may measure CO2 levels via ice cores and so forth, we have no mechanism to chart Water Vapor content trends in the prehistoric past. This is incredibly damning. Yet a great idea to fight global warming consists of hydrogen cars, after all, all theyd emit is WATER VAPOR, the most powerful of all greenhouse gases. Its laughable.

    I used to buy into the AGW theory,until I learned of sunspot activity obviously affecting our temperatures,just how dominant the sun is when it comes toward driving our climate, and the gaping hole known as our being unable to measure trends of the most potent greenhouse gas. I am not saying I know our burning of fossil fuels isnt causing warming, much less partially nor completely, either may be the reality,however,it is not proven. Its like atheism, they hold that same irrationally solid conviction as do the superstitious.

    Thats what we all should be willing to do,always be prepared to reassess ones views when presented with a logical reason, but for some reason very few people will show healthy skepticism. It is the same blind and ignorant practice as believing in a religion, and that is why this AGW theory should be viewed cautiously.

  • None of this refutes the science. The perhaps stupid acts of one or more individuals to skew some numbers does not obviate the reality.

    Sorry, it does refute the science. If the leading proponents of the AGW theory felt it necessary to change numbers and suppress data that means that they themselves doubt the science they are promoting, and that places it all in doubt. There can hardly be a stronger refutation.


  • No Dave, it doesn’t. We are talking essentially about one person. The scope of the science is much broader than that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    If ONE person skewing statistics that support AGW refutes the science thereof, then what does that say of the ONE person I pointed out to you in your other article on this topic, said person being a global-warming SKEPTIC who skewed statistics to try to tear down the AGW science?

    What’s sauce for the goose, y’know? And once we’re out of the current solar minimum that is mitigating somewhat the harshest effects of global warming (never mind that eight of the past ten years are the warmest since record-keeping began), you will begin to see just how bad it can get.

  • One person? Do you people make no effort at all to actually read the links in these articles or inform yourself about the subjects you comment on?

    The emails in question involve dozens of people including the most influential proponents of global warming at the institution which is the clearing house for global warming data. Those involved also include the primary authors of the IPCC report.

    These people are the leaders who all the other global warming activists follow. Look up major articles on the subject in scientific journals and you will find the same names coming up again and again, and those names are involved in these email exchanges.

    ever mind that eight of the past ten years are the warmest since record-keeping began

    Again, are you not paying attention or do you deliberately spew disinformation for some dubious purpose? The whole current crisis began because of German scientists who raised questions about the CRU’s research because the last 10 years were NOT warmer than normal and claims that they included unusuallly warm years were bogus.


  • Arch Conservative

    It’s all the rage for AGW eco-nazis to attribute monetary motives to those who raise questions yet Phil Jones was receiving millions of the agw movement. Gore isn’t exactly in the poorhouse either but no one wants to talk about that.

    Years from now history will rightly rectify the madness that Gore and his ilk are in the midst of perpetuating.

  • James Hansen, a principal proponent of the existence of man made global warming, now claims that it would be better were the Copenhagen climate conference to fail. He does not think that the “science” of global warming is wrong.

    Hansen admitted the controversy could shake public’s trust, and called for an investigation. “All that stuff they are arguing about the data doesn’t really change the analysis at all, but it does leave a very bad impression,” he said.

    However, he opposes the “cap and trade” scam, noting

    “This is analagous to the indulgences that the Catholic church sold in the middle ages. The bishops collected lots of money and the sinners got redemption. Both parties liked that arrangement despite its absurdity. That is exactly what’s happening,” he said. “We’ve got the developed countries who want to continue more or less business as usual and then these developing countries who want money and that is what they can get through offsets [sold through the carbon markets].”


  • It doesn’t really come out in my articles opposing these GW based power plays, but I’ve been a strong conservationist all my life. I believe strongly in improving the environment, limiting human impact and making the world a healthier place to live.

    But as Hansen points out, cap and trade and other draconian measures really have nothing to do with addressing the output of pollution. They are just moneymaking and wealth redistribution schemes which don’t actually solve the problems they are meant to address.

    The same is true of Kyoto and now Copenhagen. They aren’t intended to actually address polluton, they’re designed as power-grabs for globalist bureaucrats and special interest groups and as wealth redistribution programs.

    The proper way for the US to deal with environmental issues is through intelligent and comprehensive domestic legislation, regulating output and providing sensible incentives for rsearch and implementing green solutions. This is how we made remarkable improvements in our air and water over the past 30 years — improvements which the developing world has yet to even begin to implement despite the fact that our work has made cleaning up pollution cheaper, easier and more effective for them.


  • It is encouraging to learn that prostitutes (no, not the “scientists”) are fully supportive of the Copenhagen Climate Disaster Conference. They are in good company.

    Copenhagen’s city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to ‘Be sustainable – don’t buy sex.’

    “Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes,” the approach to hotels says.

    Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.

    Perhaps, with luck, this may breathe new life into the conference.

    Will this delightful episode be referred in history as “climaxgate?”


  • I anxiously await the arrival of my delegate materials and plane tickets.

  • That sounds like a good deal. We’re talking about Danish girls, aren’t we? They must be comparable to the Amsterdam ladies.

  • Doc,

    Buy American! it’s the patriotic thing to do.


  • Are you referring to sexual services, Dan Miller? I would agree if we were talking about a GM product, such as it may be. But when it comes to sex and love, a little spice is not a bad thing.

  • Roger, whatever turns you on.


  • President Obama has decided to delay, briefly, his attendance at the Copenhagen Climate Disaster Conference until December 18. There is, obviously, no connection between this delay and the report noted in my Comment #16.


  • Where are the three major television networks hiding?


  • Climate change naysayers are idiots. The supposed “hoax” is itself a hoax – the result of people who understand nothing wanting us all to believe otherwise.

    Listen to this. Not so cut and dried as all you opposed to notions of man-made global warming would like.


  • Glenn Contrarian

    No, Baritone, I disagree. GW deniers are not idiots. They are, however, much more likely to believe that WWE (formerly WWF) isn’t fake at all, and that Obama was actually born in Kenya and still somehow fooled all the Democrats into thinking he was born here.

    Well, on second thought…maybe you’re right after all….

  • I’m amazed at how some people can escalate an unsubstantiated allegation based on stolen emails, into a claim that the data supporting climate change is uncertain. Describing Phil Jones as a casualty is a disgraceful insult to him.

    Phil Jones stood aside to assist an investigation because he wants to get on with the work, and it’s a testament to his professionalism that he’s insisted on it. The enormous dataset that constitutes the climate change evidence is available to scientists all over the world and the idea that someone could manipulate it by some trick is utterly absurd.

    Even supposing it was possible to do this without colleagues noticing, it would be immediately discovered by other scientists working the same data set. The moment any new data came in, the original perpetrators would have to covertly repeat the operation, all over the world, simultaneously, to avoid detection. The moment the data is published and peer reviewed, they’d be exposed. What a joke!

    Of course, the conspiracists think everyone is in league against them. They’re like people who insist that because they’ve never heard people speaking Latin, that the Romans never existed. They ignore the historical texts, the temples, the coins, the linguistic roots, the inscriptions, and stick to their line that it was all made up. All the data was fixed! It’s one big con!

    It’s disgraceful that the tired old claim of junk science is being used to attack the reputations of scientists, and very sad that ill-informed politicians will reject any scientific conclusion if someone doesn’t tell them it’s 100% certain. The polar caps are melting, the sea is rising, the atmosphere is warming, but the nay-sayers have their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears. And the politicians would rather listen to commercial interests than science which demands that they pay attention. Shame on them!

  • The emails in question have been stupidly mis-interpreted because you have non-scientists who fail to understand how scientists use the language – even the word “trick.”

    The opposition to those who support belief that man-made, or at least man-assisted, global warming do so with the primary concern being their bank accounts.

    These are largely the same people who voice their supposed teary-eyed earnest concern over budget deficits and the national debt because it will cost our children too much money. They don’t apparently give a rat’s ass if the world is livable or not, so long as future generations have money to hide under their salt water soaked mattresses.


  • Useful additional information available at the BBC site showing that the three independent datasets, including the CRU, all show the same trend. Even excluding the CRU data, the two US datasets show the same thing.

  • Pablo – in response to your comment posted on the other thread

    You mentioned several months ago regarding Climategate that it was much ado about nothing

    I did, and I was clearly wrong about that, in the sense that the political fallout continues and shows no sign of abating. In the scientific context, though, I stand by my statement. The evidence to support AGW is, unfortunately, overwhelming.

    Some of those e-mails were certainly intemperate, but you must bear in mind that their authors never anticipated that they would be broadcast around the world. They can’t reasonably be interpreted as anything more sinister than bitching between work colleagues. As another example, I might mention to a co-worker at the water cooler that I want to strangle Nigel in Accounting. That doesn’t mean I’m going to actually do it.

    They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

    Actually, they were discussing how to avoid harrassment. Many of the FOIA requests were nuisance requests. The sceptics had little or no interest in honestly reviewing the data: they were simply looking for ‘gotchas’.

    Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.

    What else would you do with raw data besides manipulate it? If I simply gave you a set of temperature readings – 17, 17, 18, 15, 19, 20, 20, 20, 18, 17, 16, 14 – and told you they were from Station A over a ten-year period, with no other explanation or context, you would not have the first clue as to what to do with them. You don’t know how far apart the measurements were taken, or at what time of year, or even if they’re in chronological order. They’re useless until you apply statistical analysis to them; until you manipulate them.

    In one, Professor Jones talks about using a ‘trick’ to massage figures and ‘hide the decline’.

    Like many of the other e-mails, these remarks were taken out of context. Jones is discussing ways of (gasp) manipulating raw data. The word ‘trick’ here does not imply deceit: it is a technique, such as how you or I might invent a rhyming system as a ‘trick’ to remember phone numbers. And the ‘decline’ was just a statistical outlier which was distorting the overall accuracy of the data.

    The global warmer mongers are currently in a hasty retreat and I believe we have only seen the tip of the iceberg as it were in the fraud that has been perpetrated by the Chicken Littles of the world.

    I only wish you were right, Pablo. Sadly, the eveidence tells me you’re not.

  • Pablo,

    What I find disturbing is that you see conspiracy about every corner, nook and cranny. Consequently, if you’re seeing the conspiracy angle behind anything and everything, what other means do you really have at your disposal to analyze the existing state of affairs? None, I’m afraid, which renders all further discussion useless because you happen to be set on one and one explanation only: “it’s conspiracy, stupid, or you’re being hopelessly naive.”

    Can’t you see that taking this radical view, granted, if even partly correct, is counterproductive to reaching any kind of common understanding. The only possible result is – you and those who disagree with you keep on shouting past one another, there being no hope of seeing eye to eye. It’s the exclusionary aspect on the part of all those who are true believers: only they have the monopoly on truth, fuck the rest.

    Surely, even you must see how singularly fruitless your kind of approach to each and every question must be.

  • pablo

    Roger finally shows his cards, puts them right on the table. It sure took you long enough.

    I usually take people at their word Roger, online or off, I know it is a naive and perhaps foolish approach, but it is my nature. Regarding YOU Rog, and the fact that not once, not twice, but three times, over a period of about a year I believe, told me that you would at the very least glean some of the information from the book “Terrorism/Illuminati a Three Thousand Year History” and get back to me. So surely you must understand by now Roger that aside from all the excess verbiage that you love to spew out on this forum, in my opinion a type of mental masturbation, that your credibility with me is shot. Not to mention that you because of your lack of interest and inability to be a man of your word, have absolutely zilch knowledge of conspiracies in general other than what you have been brainwashed to believe.

    As it is useless to suggest to you other reading material Roger regarding this subject matter (conspiracies in general) I will not bother. It is unfortunate as there are some excellent books on this subject that would probably, shed some light into your ignorance about the ruling elite and their nefarious plans for total world control.

    Now getting back to the subject at hand global warming, or as the warmer mongers like to call it now “climate change”. I always found that to be a particularly humorous and ignorant phrase by so called scientific laymen. As anyone who is even at the most simplistic level aware of this issue knows that climate change is a given, and has been since the dawn of time. Then there are those that will use a bit more accurate description on the other side of the issue and call it man made climate change, however they are few and far between. These same types of folks will almost invariably as well use the derogatory terminology of “climate change deniers” frequently in their arguments to disparage those that do not believe that the sky is falling. I always found this quite humorous as well because the phraseology is highly inaccurate for obvious reasons, i e nobody is denying that the climate changes. Then there are the true blue believers in man made global warming who love to just use the word “deniers”, and obviously denigrating term, as well as casting a subtle connection to holocaust denial. Cute!!

    Yes Roger concerning my seeing a conspiracy around every corner you are quite right pal, particularly regarding any major political or economic event that involves any of the ruling elite. Whether of the Rockefellers, or the Rothchilds in particular, or their various sub-ordinates, KissAssinger, past Presidents, Gore, Maurice Strong, and others, or their organizations such as the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, or the Trilateral Commission as examples.

    Whether it is the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, or the FED, it is all the same folks who run it for their masters. The fact that you do not seem to perceive through their thin veil Roger reflects alot more on you, than me. It is much easier for those of your ilk to chastise someone like me as paranoid, then to remove the tint from your rose colored glasses. Not surprising though.

    Global warming Roger was dreamed up by the Club of Rome, another group owned and controlled by the ruling elite. This also let to the UNCED conference on climate change in Rio in the 90’s that was chaired by Maurice Strong, and his boss the late Edmund de Rothschild. I would include links for you Rog, however due to your inability to keep your word to me, why bother?

    Whether it is the current global economic meltdown, man made climagte change, 9/11, the New World Order as Gordon Brown the fabian socialist likes to talk about all of the time, the Federal Reserve scam, or the RFID implementation for global tracking of everyone, it is all the same folks behind it, and it is quite easy to see behind the veil once one gets up to snuff on the matter.

    You see dots Roger, I see patterns, and because I have the ability, and perception, and dare I say it self education, I am labeled a crackpot, or a tin foil hat dude. I could give a shit frankly, and because you only see the dots Roger I have no problem labeling you either as extremely naive, ignorant, and brainwashed.

    Once you begin to see the patterns another somewhat interesting phenomenon happens. One begins to see that the ruling elite (I have named them already) are having the time of their lives laughing at the cattle, they revel in their mischief and inhumane deeds on a daily basis, in other words Roger they are laughing at you! I am not laughing however, and I do send a pittance of pity your way, because as intelligent as you are,, you still cannot see the forest for the trees pal. Good luck! You are gonna need it Rog.

    Dread, I will comment fully on comment 29 very soon, suffice it to say that the warmer mongers are in deep shit, and its only getting worse, because the masses are slowly arising from their slumber, and getting more pissed by the moment!

  • pablo

    26 Bob Lloyd:

    No Bob, shame on Phil Jones, I see he has yet to get his position back as well. I wonder why? 🙂

    Oh and shame on you too Bob for being such a naive zealot in your own enslavement.

  • Pablo,

    I wasn’t disputing any particular issue with you, only the fact that because you are committed to seeing conspiracies everywhere, you put yourself in the corner in that you cannot tolerate any kind of disagreement. I, for one, am open to seeing things your way on this issue or that; and perhaps that’s the main difference between us.

    And I don’t think it’s fair of you to lash out at me for not having yet read up on some of the material you were kind enough to provide me with links. I don’t know your personal situation, and you certainly don’t know mine to be reading any ill will or intent into this. Sorry, but apart from my own concerns and interests, I have some other things on the burner, personal things which I need not discuss.

    So I apologize for having offended you, but the intent wasn’t there. And I suppose it’s your business how you choose to label me.
    To the best of my knowledge, I never called you a nut.

  • pablo

    [edited] Roger regarding the reading material, You chose not to follow up on something that you said you would, it is as simple as that. If you say you’re going to do something to another person, just do it! Simple.

    No Roger, you never did call me nuts, you implied it, which is fine, and I responded accordingly and explained why I see and who I see regarding a conspiracy around every major event. I also include by the way, JFK, RFD, MLK, Oklahoma City, 9/11, man made global warming, the New World Order, Paul Wellstone’s demise, the EU, and the UN, as all part and parcel of the same folks. PERIOD. You believe what you will, and I will do the same, however the differnce is that I have spent years researching all of the above incidents, while you have not. Come up to snuff on the matters as it were, and then and only then will you and I be on the same playing field, as it is now your are a neophyte. In my opinion you waste most of your time Roger discussing and regurgitating the issues of the day as things continue to decline on a more and more frequent timetable. People do not like admitting that they have been had, it is the hardest obstacle to overcome, as their egos preclude them from perception. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book, which is why it is the ticket to admission and a high price to pay.

    You and others go round and round and round on the issues of the day and fail to see the forest for the trees. I will give you this Roger, you are one of the few regulars on this site, who is at least able to see the left/right paradigm as being obsolete. Most of the others on here are firmly entrenched in their belief system, to the extent of being completely ignorant of what is really going on in the world, which is really quite simple. There is a ruling elite, and they are currently in the process of firmly centralizing their power on a global scale and reducing the left over masses to feudalism. The people that truly show their naivete in living color are those that actually think that people such as Clinton, the Bush’s, and Obama are freely and lawfully elected by the electorate, nothing has ever been further from the truth, the Bush Gore debacle notwithstanding. The game is rigged, the jig is up. People such as Zingzing actually think that those who are in control would give him a voice, and recognize his sovereignty. Amazing. I would suggest to him and others of his ilk to take a good long look at the late George Carlin’s amazing comments on the american dream, as it is accurate to a T.

  • Pablo, I would never imply something like that to you, or to anyone for that matter, and try to communicate with them. In light of any such implication, I wouldn’t consider any further communication to be fruitful. I simply wouldn’t do it. It would not only be dishonest but also treating you on less-than-equal level. I’ve always assumed integrity on your part, and I believe I never gave you a reason to question it. (Contrast my remarks to you with some others here whom I happen to suspect are either disingenuous or are playing a fool.)

    All I’ve tried to do is to point out the corner you’re painting yourself into. And I realize now I ought not to have done this, simply because you are aware of the ramifications that come with taking your position.

    So yes, I should not have addressed the issue at all.

  • zingzing

    pablo: “[edited] People such as Zingzing actually think that those who are in control would give him a voice, and recognize his sovereignty.”

    why on earth would they do that? they don’t even know who i am. i don’t know why you would believe i would believe that, or what information you have that would suggest such things to you. or why you would say such a thing. or why you would even bother to think it. it pretty much tells me you have no idea what i’m thinking. so maybe you should reconsider. there’s no reason for you to believe the sentence you wrote.

    really, the amount of conclusions you can take from a total lack/misconstruing of information is quite amazing. [edited]

  • pablo

    Roger I really have only one thing to say to you bro. Open your eyes, it is really not hard to see, and it is all around you, no need to be in denial man.

  • pablo

    Dread 29,

    I looked at your link. I found the comments alot more interesting than the pseudo scientific propaganda. I wonder Dread, assuming of course that you like to think of yourself as having an open mind if you ever wander over to the other side of the issue and taka a good long hard look at what they are saying about this issue, man made climate change. I know I am arrogant, and self presuming, so I will say that I highly doubt that you actually have.

    Should you decide to, assuming of course that you have not, to actually put your assumption about yourself as having an open mind to work, here is in my not so humble opinion an excellent site debunking man made c02 driven global warming. Take a look at it if ya got the chance mate, I would love to hear your take on it. In fact, I dare you.

    The site is wattsupwiththat(dot)com, not gonna bother hyperlinking as im currrently busy makin money online.

    Al Gore is a scammer, as are his butt buddies Maurice Strong, Pauchari of the IPCC, Phil Jones, and the rest of the chicken little carbon dioxide derivative con men of the world. It does not take being a rocket scientist to see this Dread, or even a scientist at all! LOL

    Whoever said they can’t tax the air that we breathe? They surely had not heard of the UK or the good ole U S of A, they sure as fuck can, and will.

  • pablo

    Roger 33:

    “I wasn’t disputing any particular issue with you, only the fact that because you are committed to seeing conspiracies everywhere, you put yourself in the corner in that you cannot tolerate any kind of disagreement.”

    Unfortunately Roger I do not get disagreement per se to debate, I get derision, ridicule and contempt, and respond in kind. Try actually debating me on an issue and you just might be surprised at my conciliatory nature, and ability to communicate instead of react. What I cannot and do not tolerate is the Dave Nalle approach to debate, which unfortunately it seems to me that many folks on this site emulate. I will continue to respond in kind, up to and until I find someone willing to actually debate me on conspiracies, hell you could take your pick Rog, JFK, RFK, MLK, OKC, WACO, 9/11, the Bilderbergs, Bohemian Grove, CFR/Chatham House, Cecil Rhodes, the Rothchilds, Rockyfellers, the City of London, the corporation known as the USA, the FED, the Tavistock Institute of Public Relations, or MKULTRA. Take your pick, I am extremely well versed in all of them. However there aint a one of you out there regulars on this site, who will take the challenge. You all prefer to sit back and make fun as the world you live in, is being eaten alive by your predators, and your too blind to see the forest for the trees.

    Try me! I dare ya. Hehehehehe

  • pablo

    Another thing that warmer mongers love to say is how big oil is leading the charge in the so called denier camp. I find it amusing to say the least that two of the leading proponents of man made cO2 global warming are oil men themselves, I am referring to Maurice Strong, and Al Gore of Occidental Petroleum. Seeing as how those of their ilk HAVE been polluting the planet with real carcinogens such as hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and PCB’s for a century, it is just a wee bit ludicrous to believe them about anything, particularly their noticed absence of EVER mentioning said pollutants, instead they would rather concentrate on plant food, carbon dioxide.

    Also the CRU at the University of East Anglia was in part financed by both BP, and Shell Oil, however you will not hear that from the warmer monger crowd. Look it up yourself folks. Does the word HYPOCRISY strike a nerve? hehehehe

  • Pablo,

    I wasn’t deriding you, nor do I doubt your ability to debate.

    But you’re wrong in thinking I’m being naive. One reason I no longer write for the Politics section is because I know the system is broken, beyond fixing. I may disagree with you about the role you assign to evil and conniving men – though I don’t deny that such exist – but that doesn’t mean I’m buying into a party line of any kind. Indeed, rather than highlighting individual determinism as the major cause of our problems, I see it rather in the system which it out of control and at the brink of total breakdown. Which is to say, my focus, at present, is on the self-destructive processes at work rather than on the doings of evil men.

    Again, I don’t deny the reality of your point of view, but in my thinking is not sufficient explanation to my taste to account for the systemic failure we’re experiencing. Indeed, it is the latter which is the object of my attention.

    But as I said, I shall look into your sources so we could discuss this further.

  • I looked at your link. I found the comments alot more interesting…

    That doesn’t surprise me.

    …than the pseudo scientific propaganda.

    Would you mind explaining exactly how you came to that conclusion, since the site links to numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers?

    I wonder Dread, assuming of course that you like to think of yourself as having an open mind if you ever wander over to the other side of the issue and taka a good long hard look at what they are saying about this issue, man made climate change.

    As a matter of fact, I do look at the other side’s arguments, always in the hope that they have actually hit on something. Like everyone else, I would dearly love it if AGW and its effects turned out not to be happening.

    I’m familiar with ‘Watt’s Up With That’. The site contains many examples of what is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which non-specialists home in on what they perceive is a fatal flaw in their opponent’s argument, without it occurring to them that the opponent might already have thought of and allowed for it. The effect of water vapour as a greenhouse gas is a well-known example of this.

    it is just a wee bit ludicrous to believe them about anything, particularly their noticed absence of EVER mentioning said pollutants, instead they would rather concentrate on plant food, carbon dioxide.

    Pablo, there comes a point where the source of a body of information is irrelevant, and that is when the evidence for a thing is as plain as a pikestaff. If [Dave… Godwin’s Law alert!] Adolf Hitler knocks on my door and tells me my house is on fire, and I can smell smoke, then on balance I think I’m going to leave the house.

    The scientific evidence for AGW is overwhelming, there is a massive amount of it, and it is out there for anyone to look at it, irrespective of whether it was printed on paper which was manufactured by a company whose deputy chief executive once owned shares in Exxon Mobil.

    The fact that you’d rather fixate on that sort of thing rather than actually look at the evidence or address any of the logical points I made says rather more about you than about the reality of AGW, I’m afraid.

  • As for “plant food – carbon dioxide”, that’s really the strongest and most straightforward piece of evidence we have for AGW. It is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – we would not be here if it weren’t. There is a specific isotope of CO2 which is produced by the burning of fossil fuels. This is precisely the same isotope which is being detected in ever larger quantities in the atmosphere.

    Earth’s oceans and flora actually absorb a good deal of this extra CO2, or we’d be in an even bigger pickle than we are.

  • pablo

    Sorry Dread, the science is far from settled on this matter, with the exception of those that are on the dole from their fake research, particularly the IPCC and the CRU, both of whom have been discredited beyond redemption. I fully expect Pauchari head of the IPCC to be indicted any day now for fraud. Just wanted to insert a link. It is an archive.org link that is an archived CRU website page, clearly showing funding from both BP and Shell oil, as well as the illuminati front of the WWF, started by former Nazi SS man Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands who also just happens to be the founder of the Bilderberg Group as well.

    So much for the argument from warmer mongers that the other side is funded by big oil, hahaha, what a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

    Pauchari and Al Gore side by side winners of the Nobel Peace prize. Two of the biggest con man in the world at this moment. Some people will believe anything! Particularly that the sky is falling. Get ready for your rfid carbon identification card, and dont forget to invest in carbon derivatives!

    CRU at the University of East Anglia funded by big oil!

    And one more link 30,000 scientists sign petition contesting man made global warming. Sure Al Gore and Dread, the science is most certainly settled on this issue. Give me a fucking break Dread. Pulllease.


  • pablo


  • pablo

    Dread 43,

    I never said that there were not increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere pal, that is a given. What is in contention is whether this is actually increasing temperatures. For the last 15 years there has been no statistical increase in the warmth of the planet. That is a fucking fact Jack.

  • pablo

    RE 40

    I almost forgot to mention that Dr Rajendra Pachauri was an oil man too, and not even a scientist let alone a climatologist! He does however oooze out slime.

  • Sorry Dread, the science is far from settled on this matter

    In the sense that nothing in science is ever completely settled, you’re right. However, AGW is one of the most robust theories out there. The holes that skeptics think they’ve found in it invariably turn out to be watertight.

    So much for the argument from warmer mongers that the other side is funded by big oil

    Neither I nor any serious climate scientist is in the habit of making such a claim.

    CRU at the University of East Anglia funded by big oil!

    Actually, I’d be surprised if some of the funding for GW research didn’t come from oil companies. Why wouldn’t they want to learn more about how their product affects the environment?

    And one more link 30,000 scientists sign petition contesting man made global warming.

    Very few of whom are climate scientists – about 200, by one reckoning. Other surveys and petitions have shown that 97% of climate scientists do agree that AGW is happening. If that ain’t a consensus, I don’t know what is.

    I don’t know about you, but if I’m at a conference with 100 structural engineers and 97 of them start studying the walls and ceiling and then say that they think the building is about to collapse, it’s probably prudent to listen to them.

    What is in contention is whether this is actually increasing temperatures.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has always been a greenhouse gas. Can you explain why it is that you think this particular CO2 is failing to behave in the same way as all other CO2 in the history of CO2?

    For the last 15 years there has been no statistical increase in the warmth of the planet.

    For the last two days there has been no statistical increase in daytime temperatures where I live. Does that mean summer’s not coming?

    Your illogic is showing, Pablo.

  • pablo

    Actually Dread it is your irrationality that is showing, in spades.

  • Since when is it irrational to make logical arguments? Which you still refuse to answer, BTW.