Quote from Intrepid :

This may be the case, but as far as I am aware they are one of the only major news agencies making a big deal out of this.

Their reasons for making a big deal are as politically biased as those who are not acknowledging it at all. Just because their bias happens to suit the sceptics, at least by getting the story out there, that doesn't mean they share the motivations of the sceptics.

The sceptics just want good science performed, and don't want bad science to be paraded, masquerading as good science. Politics doesn't enter into it.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

Glen reminds me of the Air Force guy who went a bit nuts and sent the entire fleet of B52 bombers into Russia in Dr Strangelove

"I can no longer sit back and allow [...] the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Quote from SamH :

Their reasons for making a big deal are as politically biased as those who are not acknowledging it at all. Just because their bias happens to suit the sceptics, at least by getting the story out there, that doesn't mean they share the motivations of the sceptics.

The sceptics just want good science performed, and don't want bad science to be paraded while masquerading as good science. Politics doesn't enter into it.

I don't have a problem with bias from a private news agency. I don't have to pay for it. In some ways this can be a good thing. Different views get aired and we can make up our own minds.

However bias from a state-owned broadcaster funded by tax is a whole different thing. A broadcaster that monopolises the market especially.

I want good science on this, but when the major news agencies ignore this issue it's bound to get latched onto by Glenn Beck etc... It's the failure of our over regulation of news in the UK as well as the BBC that ahs caused this.

As I say, and you, thank god for bloggers!

Quote from Intrepid :

Damage to the excistance of humanity, arguable. But 'damage' to the earth? I am not sure we can actually 'damage' the earth. it is what it is. Essentially we are 'earth' so anything we do is of the earth. Earth can't damage earth.

One word - Chernobyl

It can be argued that due to mans actions, that area of earth was/is damaged. It can also be debated as to whether or not it can ever be reversed.

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

One word - Chernobyl

It can be argued that due to mans actions, that area of earth was/is damaged. It can also be debated as to whether or not it can ever be reversed.

The lives lost will not be reversed. The decay of the buildings over the years will not be reversed. But eventually, the radiation will subside, and Earth and the life on it will go on.

O/T:
I just noticed your Dr. Strangelove-themed avatar and sig. Kubric's dark humor at it's finest. I love it.

Quote from Forbin :

The lives lost will not be reversed. The decay of the buildings over the years will not be reversed. But eventually, the radiation will subside, and Earth and the life on it will go on.

O/T:
I just noticed your Dr. Strangelove-themed avatar and sig. Kubric's dark humor at it's finest. I love it.

Yes but you wouldn’t build a house on that land just now would you. In the purest of terms I would consider that land to be 'Damaged' just like I would consider my useless piece of junk pc at home damaged. But 'Damaged items' may be repaired if/when the time and means comes.

O/T. It’s a great film, loved it as a kid and can never get bored of it. Must have seen it now 30/40 times.

Quote from Intrepid :

As I say, and you, thank god for bloggers!

And on that score, Paul Hudson's blog (Paul was pretty much the mainstream media's first acknowledgement that there's no global warming going on) has info on the independent enquiry. Could be fun!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/pau ... ws-cru-enquiry-anno.shtml

Another good post by Daniel Hannan - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n ... -the-case-for-scepticism/ - and http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n ... reatened_by_the_internet/

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

Let me guess....did Glen at some point break down and cry over how the evil liberals/Obama/Socialism/The Red Army are ruining everything American and pure.

Glen reminds me of the Air Force guy who went a bit nuts and sent the entire fleet of B52 bombers into Russia in Dr Strangelove

Quote from SamH :

Glenn Beck is a moron. That's a scientific fact for you. I can even prove it with a wealth of empirical evidence, and everyone would be welcome to check my work.

[...]

Forget FOX News, Beck et al. They're insidious.

There was a man in there talking about the environment somewhere and a blog criticising him. No?

I must admit, I very nearly added a plea not to discuss Glenn Beck or Fox because this response was just too predictable.

Quote from 5haz :

Of course, but that dosen't make taxing people on the amount of carbon they produce for dubious reasons any more reasonable.

And you'd be naiive to think that the money gained from these taxes would go into developing methods of alternative energy production, it'll most likely go into some war that nobody wanted or pay for an MP's porn collection.

again as ive said countless times in here already its even more naive to think that governments wouldnt find another scapegoat to blame thei tax raises on if global warming had never entered the discussion

Quote :

How does anyone know that its not going on elsewhere? And even if it is only one research group, that isn't an acceptable excuse.

we dont but im getting tired of people acting as if this is the only noteworthy climatology research group in the world

Quote :

Right then, well don't go questioning other people's scientific experience as a way to counter someone else's post.

again read what i said
i questioned others experience with science on the grounds that they obviously had no idea of what goes on in labs more often than it should
that applies to all sciences and im sure everyone whos spent some time in a lab will have a few stories to tell about selective representation of data
therefore the specifics of my work dont matter in any way
they would if i were arguing about global warming while not being a climatologist but as you must have noticed im not (and neither is any of you as far as i can tell for that matter)

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

One word - Chernobyl

In geological terms, Chenobyl was like a gnat's fart. The earth will happily shrug it off in a few hundreds of thousands of years - again, in geological terms, a small amount of time.

Quote from Shotglass :

we dont but im getting tired of people acting as if this is the only noteworthy climatology research group in the world

It isn't, but it is one of the most noteworthy. Specifically as the HADCru temperature product that the IPCC bases many of its assumptions on in regards to warming in the 20th C is developed out of UEA CRU (in conjunction with the Hadley Centre). You have consistently failed in this thread to understand the weight and importance of the UEA CRU and its position in this debate.

Nils-Axel Mörner in an open letter to the President of the Maldives :goldfish:

oh now ur all pissed off cuz u finally realized were lied to. i got flamed for saying man made global warming was a hoax

oh and everybody criticizing glenn back and fox news: Fox reported on this stuff when NO other stations would report it. MSNBC, CNN they wouldnt touch it. Somebody was trying to tell the truth.

Quote from Electrik Kar :

It isn't, but it is one of the most noteworthy. Specifically as the HADCru temperature product that the IPCC bases many of its assumptions on in regards to warming in the 20th C is developed out of UEA CRU (in conjunction with the Hadley Centre). You have consistently failed in this thread to understand the weight and importance of the UEA CRU and its position in this debate.

i thought we had all worked out already that the ipcc is a rather useless highly biased political organisation?
ive said before that the whole politics angle is completely moot

Politics killed climatology (for the time being anyway). You might be surprised how much the IPCC is seen (even in scientific circles) as the last and best word on the subject. But maybe you mightn't be.

Shot, always the cynic!

Quote from flymike91 :

oh now ur all pissed off cuz u finally realized were lied to. i got flamed for saying man made global warming was a hoax

I've known it all along that we've been defrauded along with the governments throwing endless pits of money at a nonexistant problem.

Quote from Shotglass :

i thought we had all worked out already that the ipcc is a rather useless highly biased political organisation?
ive said before that the whole politics angle is completely moot

that it is, but we're talking about the importance of the CRU, not the IPCC. The CRU at the UEA forms basically the backbone of the IPCC's claims, so the buck stops with the CRU. The CRU inform, influence and deliver advice and predictions to the IPCC, so any bias originates not just from the IPCC itself but more importantly from the root cause, the CRU.

Part III of the 'Google conspiracy'

I've been looking at the google searchwords for climategate over the past couple of days.

'climategate' hasn't been showing for atleast two days now.
'climate-gate' was showing for awhile, now it has gone.
'climate gate scandal' was also showing yesterday, it too has gone.

Today there are no words referencing climategate on google.


edit: today (6/12/2009) 'climate gates' shows when you type 'climate gat'







GOOGLEGATE!!!




ps, it's still funny how climate audit is the number one suggestion for climate. Real funny.

UN panel to probe scientists in climate change row: http://www.independent.co.uk/e ... e-change-row-1834151.html

I'm not sure how much faith to place in a UN investigation of the scientists behind the IPCC AR4. I guess we have to wait and see what methodology they use. Two investigations in parallel; I wonder if their conclusions are as diverse as the UEA's CRU tree ring and proxy temperature readings.

Now that's good journalism

It could be argued that Chernobyl was actually good for the environment, sure humans can't live there but the wildlife is thriving http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud33w26qsWQ

I'm one of those that think that all the generations before us (2 or 3 gens ago) should have thought about all the shit they did to the planet. First NOW all those stupid asses start to think about how bad it was for the climate with all those goddamn Nuclearbomb-tests both above and under ground/water.

So when all the people that MADE the planet what it is and how it is now, take blame for it, THEN i can start to think about doing anything about the climate.. until then ill just continue like now

Quote from Gav190 :

It could be argued that Chernobyl was actually good for the environment, sure humans can't live there but the wildlife is thriving http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud33w26qsWQ

It actually had a positive effect on humans as well. The vast majority who weren't exposed to harmful/lethal levels of the radiation have shown a marked decrease in forms of cancer, as the radiation killed off any cancerous cells that may have taken root in their bodies.

the fallout continues, as BBC's Roger Harrabin comes clean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDE4tvx-z8

a frank admission from an unexpected quarter

I love how this is just in time for the big global warming summit in Europe. Al Gore cancelled his speech, every question is going to be about this huge cover-up..the whole thing is going to be completely derailed...beautiful!

my biggest hope is that this ends all discussion of cap and trade or carbon tax forever.

I think people knew in the back of their minds that global warming was a lie. I mean the air is so much cleaner now than it was in 1975 there's no way we're worse off now than before catalytic converters were invented.

The CRU has said that releasing the emails was an irresponsible way to attack global warming but IMO its the only way skeptics could ever have their voice heard since, to their own admission, scientists who were trying to prove global warming is man made were blocking research to the contrary. The only reason there is "a huge body of evidence" in support of global warming is because dissenting research was censored by the leftist scientists, politicians and journalists.

Sums it up quite nicely but OMIGOD its from FOX: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5SRJJmfJs