It has nothing to do with the influence of the people in
question, my intention is to drive home the point that casual
and offhand comments that we made between friends and colleagues
could easily be used against us to hint something other than the
ordinary.
I have even went through a portion of the emails for arguments'
sake. Most of it is extremely boring stuff, so i can see why lazy
people who are not prepared to use a magnifying glass on
scrutinizing the evidence on both sides
could easily be duped into believing something that
isn't there.
There isn't any mention of any combined efforts in the
emails i've read so far to dupe the world into the Great
Global Warming Conspiracy. No mention of any groups or
corporations driving the scientists and directing the effort.
Oh really? Somehow you think spreading rumours of a conspiracy
possibly sabotaging efforts to assist Third World Countries to
combat the potential devastating efforts of rising sea
levels and getting the world off the usage of fossil fuels do
not require credentials and format training ?
So you think a teenager sitting in front of his computer should
be given the same weight in his opinion as Noam Chomsky? Would you
trust a trainee doctor fresh out of medical school with brain
surgery? Or a colleage student the reins to manage the construction
of a nuclear plant?
I don't know what "Redefining peer review literature" is, and
i bet you don't either. So kindly explain to me what exactly
this means, and don't try to cut and paste it from somewhere.
I've actually read the emails regarding the FOI requests i can
understand why they had to do what they did. The request was from a
man who was a mathematician and not schooled in climate
sciences.
They did not want to deal with a man whose sole aim
was to prove them wrong and would definitely
have to keep distracting them from doing proper work with
clarifications and questions.
Granted, this is a questionable practice. However, i can only
see attempts to avoid handling distractions from a person
who was not academically trained in their field but not
an effort to doctor numbers in support of global warming.
Academic laziness? Yes. But saying they're deliberately trying
to promote global warming and that it isn't happening?
Not from what i see from the natural disasters this year and
certainly not from the pictures of i've seen of diminishing ice
caps in the Arctic Circle and Greenland. And of the Red Sandstorm
in Australia and near constant forest fires there and in
California.
Most importantly however, it only indicate one group of
scientists who just didn't want to go through the hassle of having
to convince someone who has already decided what the truth is and
does by itself is not indicative of a global effort by scientists
to hoodwink us.
Also note, the data that was FOI requested didn't belong them to
them it belonged to the Russians. Thus it wasn't covered under the
FOI, you cannot give something that isn't licensed to you.
That is correct, manmade carbon dioxide is not the main
cause for global warming. I can agree on it.
But major disasters are rarely driven by just one
cause. Like the Three Mile Island incident and the recent Financial
Crisis it takes a "perfect storm" of happenstances and coincidences
in order to create a major disaster.
Yes, global warming has happened in prehistoric times and
as recent as the 1400s in Greenland. But we have a new factor
that has never happened before in Earth's history. We have a 7
billion sized population, burning fossil fuels and cutting
down the jungles/forests that were supposed to recycle those carbon
dioxides.
We do not know the full consequences of what this new
factor may bring but we know if this new factors nudge the
temperature just 1-2 degrees it's more than enough to make the
warming become from "mildly uncomfortable" to full blown droughts
and floods.
Yes, man made carbon dioxide alone is not capable of making
major drastic changes to global warming. But all it takes is just a
slight and miniscule contribution to the warming to completely
disrupt our food and water supply.
We may, in fact be recovering from the Little
Ice Age but we have no idea how much more the warming's going to be
and whether our current crops and glacial levels could still be
maintained to support 7 billion people which is continuing to
rise.
I know, there absolutely can't be a conspiracy involving
thousands of climate scientists, corporate figures and politicians
scheming to deceive us for whatever purposes. There just can't be
right?
Its simply the kind of behaviour which our social system
produces via the profit-survival mechanism. Just like how
Bayer deliberately sold HIV-contaminated vaccines, once there
is a vested interest attached to a particular outcome, the groups
that have the power will naturally gravitate towards it; even if it
goes against the facts or human concern.
4 points as to why this is so important, which I took from a Telegraph article:
1. A bunch of climate scientists at the Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia have been caught out
cheating. They distorted evidence, hid or lost inconvenient raw
data, manipulated the science towards a particular end, and set out
to silence hard-working, decent, honest scientists who disagreed
with them.
2. Those climate scientists aren’t just any old bunch of
scientists. They work at the very heart of the IPCC process. They –
and their friends: for this is a small and tight cabal, comprising
around 43 scientists – are the ‘lead authors’ on the IPCC’s
reports. They also supply the most important of the four data
records used by the IPCC. They are the people telling our political
leaders that the world is suffering from catastrophic Anthropogenic
Global Warming – caused largely by the growth in CO2 emissions –
and that urgent action needs to be taken to prevent it.
3. According to one estimate – by the International Energy
Agency – the global cost of dealing with AGW will be $45 trillion
(that’s 2/3 of the world’s current entire economic). This will mean
our energy bills will rise by perhaps a factor of ten; that we will
be subject to more and more pettifogging rules on what kind of
lightbulbs we use and how we dispose of our trash – perhaps even
how often we’re allowed to fly; it will mean governance by
unelected “experts” and technocrats from the UN; it will cripple
industry; it will mean higher taxes; it will take money from the
middle classes in the Western world and hand them over in the form
of “compensation” to kleptocrat dictators in the Third World; it
will almost certainly send the global economy diving into a double
dip depression. We are, in other words, about to be presented with
the biggest bill in the history of mankind.
4. Given what we now know about the reliability of 2 and the
basis of 1, are we really sure that with 3 we’re getting our
money’s worth?
On the issue of taking statements out of context etc, it seems
like you're trying to defend the indefensible. Without calling
masscres pacification, torture enhanced interrogation techniques or
the War on Terror overseas contingency operations, let's just call
them as they are. Manipulation of data and efforts to silence
skeptics by pressuring scientific journals among others.
And more so after Michael Mann has attempted to distance himself from
the released emails. Granted this may an effort to make the
best of a mess, but if there was nothing devious about them, why
the flip flop?
As prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook commented:
"Legitimate scientists do not doctor data,
delete data they don't like, hide data they don't want seen, hijack
the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose
views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is
used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of science,
provide false data to further legislation on climate change that
will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians,
and tell outright lies about scientific data."
Its not like the science is unsettled. We know that the Sun is causing warming on Earth as
well as on other planets. We know that global temperatures (whatever that
means) has been falling (ironically from CRU data).
But because of the vested interest associated with climate
change solutions, the corporate media has largely taken a one-sided
point of view. Why else would the BBC delay the release of the
story despite knowing of it a month before the emails were leaked?
Why would CNN waited 6 days after the emails were released before
reporting on it? Moreover, the first reports by the MSM focused
largely on data theft or omitted the implications of scientific
fraud. Given the MSM's history of reporting skewd information over
the last decade, its surprising there is still so much trust in
such a failed institution.
As I have said again and again, even if the science for a
warming is concrete, the solutions being pushed are completely a
scam. By all means, I'm for environmental protection and the
full utilisation of renewable energy methods. Even the prominent
pro-climate change scientist James Hansen has voiced opposition to
such a scheme. Not only did he called for the failure of the
Copenhagen Summit:
It would be better for the planet and for future
generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended
in collapse.
but he also recognised that the cap-and-trade scheme would just
be business as usual for the corporatocracy:
[Phasing out coal emissions would] require
nothing less than an energy revolution based on efficiency and
carbon-free energy sources. Alas, we won't get there with the
Waxman-Markey bill, a monstrous absurdity hatched in Washington
after energetic insemination by special interests.
For all its "green" aura, [the] Waxman-Markey
[climate bill] locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands
it with a Ponzi-like "cap-and-trade" scheme.
No offence, but I think you're being extremely naive to believe
that a concerted effort by governments and the corporatocracy to
regulate carbon emissions would also threaten their own interest
for the sake of environmental concern.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard
statements from leaders representing eight big energy companies,
including General Electric, Shell, and the two largest owners of
utilities in the U.S., Exelon and Duke Energy. Six of the eight
said they would either welcome or accept mandatory caps on their
greenhouse-gas emissions. Wal-Mart too spoke in favor of carbon
caps. The two outliers from the energy sector, Southern Company and
American Electric Power, delivered pro forma bids for a voluntary
rather than mandatory program, but they, too, broke with tradition
by implicitly acknowledging that regulations may be coming, and
offering detailed advice on how they should be
designed.
And of course, don't forget Goldman Sachs, which has both hands
in Obama's pants, and especially Al Gore, are all set to profit
immensely from a carbon derivative market (Who says the bankers
have learnt their lesson?). Rather than "shoot their own foot", its
going to be the middle and lower classes that will be bearing
the
financial and social costs of such a policy. Do we really need this
to teach us about elite double standards when history is full of
it?
That's the sickness with society. Problems only get 'solved'
when its profitable to do so while getting mixed up with all kinds
of vested interests, just like the present situation. As George
Carlin put it:
Anything we don't like about ourselves, we
declare war on it! We don't do anything about it! We just declare
war on it! It's the only metaphor... the only metaphor we have in
our public discourse, for solving problems! Declaring
war! We have to declare war on everything! We have the war on
crime, the war on poverty, the war on liquor, the war on
cancer, the war on drugs... Did you ever notice? We got no war on
homelessness! No war on homelessness! Do you know why?
There's no money in that problem! No money to be made off of
the homeless! If you could find a solution...! ...you
could find a solution to homelessness with the corporate
swine, and the politicians could steal a couple of million dollars
each...you'd see the streets of America begin to clear up
pretty goddam quick! I'll guarantee you that!
To you, a TVP solution where we use our immensely advanced
technology to free ourselves from the shackles of money and jobs,
ushering in a new concept of freedom, and which would (God forbid!)
create an egalitarian society where we all shared with each other
obviously wouldnt work because as everyone knows, the free market
is the only system that can promote human concern and progress.
I know I've rambled long enough and I hope you still have the
energy to cover one last (short) point.
With statements like "2009 is... the first year of global
governance" and that "The climate conference in Copenhagen is
another step towards the global management of our planet" by first
EU president Herman Van Rompuy, its obvious which outcome is the
one supported by huge vested interests.
While that isnt concrete enough to prove anything, it highlights
the question as to whether MSM coverage and the moulding of the
public consciousness is affected by such conflicts of interest.
