ClimateGate: When will the MSM stop with the crap!

[Mr Oz]

Saw this article in the SMH.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... -k5r8.html

Last week, a private exchange of emails among climate scientists stoked a firestorm of scepticism after it was hacked and posted on the web.
The memos expressed frustration at the scientists' inability to explain what they described as a temporary slowdown in warming, and discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate naysayers.

"Temporary f*cking decline!" now they never discussed anything "temporary". Moreover how the heck do know it's temporary d*ckhead? do have crystal balls or something and can see into the future. Get Real! evidence is evidence. "Counter the campaign of climate naysayers?" no you fstick they destroyed and hid evidence!

Excuse the french idiot, they discussed an intentional manipulation of evidence to fit a theory and the willful dismissal and destruction of evidence and discussion contrary to that theory.

And they wonder why newspapers are going broke!

[Morrolan]

pathetic bit of re-writing. who owns SMH anyways?

[Rosbif71]

Saw this morning on the news that Paul McCartny is to attend a hearing of MEPs today to tell them that we can save the world if we all eat Linda Mccartney Veggie burgers!

[Mr Oz]

That article is so 1984...

Jon Stewart sums it up nicely without trying to spin it in either direction.


So MSM (mainstream media) are you going to report this or just try and spin it and take that giant leap forward towards irrelevence..

[Joseph27]

Jon Stewart does present news in probably the most refreshing manner possible... his show is both funny and his critique sharp...

Its fine that the planet's temperatures are not rising as per some forecast... but again it doesnt mean everything is going along without need for humanity to look around and fix major issues... oceans are risings, massive icesheets are falling away... even if you say that humanity has nothing to do with - isnt there a case to see what we can do to ensure that food supplies arent massively compromised / that forest arent destroyed / or that the air is so damn polluted...

This email is poor form but it doesnt end the debate - it doesnt repair the earth it simply tells so many people to keep doing what they are doing and ignore any consequences... dang it

[Burbage]

Yes, but the only effect that reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have is that I won't have to mow the grass so often. But it seems to me that wrecking the economy to save me a bit of work is a tad excessive.

The world is getting warmer, but what we have to do is react to that and prepare for it. Operating under the pretence that we can stop it is utterly irresponsible.

[Fat Bob]

Don't we have to conserve resources? There's only a limited amount of oil, coal and the like.

[Burbage]

Don't we have to conserve resources? There's only a limited amount of oil, coal and the like.

No. Our priority needs to be finding alternatives. The fossil fuel industries are, of course, keen to control this process so that it doesn't happen. The oil industry's commitment to finding other fuels is wholly invested in advertising that it is doing so.

[Fat Bob]

Well, until we find alternatives don't we have to conserve what we've got?

[Mr Oz]

Well, until we find alternatives don't we have to conserve what we've got?

There are already alternatives which nobody want to talk about. Nuclear. More importantly Cold Fusion. But this stuff is not profitable like a tax on carbon! Why would a government (with ETS) want to give up such a revenue cash cow. You think oil companies are trying to stop alternate energy, well the governments will be far more effective.

FYI
Carbon dioxide has increased aspens' growth rate, new study shows
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13923739

So the CO2 in the atmosphere is being gobbled up by trees... Geez didn't i learn that in 3rd grade. So there is no need for an ETS just plant more trees. OMG! Thats what they have been saying for more than 20 years. Oh but that's not profitable for governments.

[Morrolan]

Cold Fusion doesn't exist, though.

[Mr Oz]

Cold Fusion doesn't exist, though.

Oh but it does... US 60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n&tag=api

[Burbage]

Hmm... How often is 60 minutes right?

There's hot fusion of course. It's called the sun.

[Morrolan]

Cold Fusion doesn't exist, though.

Oh but it does... US 60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n&tag=api

not really:

the experiments produce excess heat at best 70 percent of the time; it can take days or weeks for the excess heat to show up. And it's never the same amount of energy twice.

he can't even get it to 'work' himself, thus, it doesn't... unless a process is reliable and replicable (independently), it doesn't exist.

everything else is measuring errors and wishful thinking.

[Mr Oz]

he can't even get it to 'work' himself, thus, it doesn't... unless a process is reliable and replicable (independently), it doesn't exist.

If we had this type of thinking thomas edison would never invented the light bulb. What I mean is that principal of the light bulb had been around for years just nobody had got the light to emit stably without burning out. So the whole idea of the light bulb doesn't exist because nobody got it work reliably? So we ignore it? OMG! That is the whole purpose of scientific research, the process clearly generates energy so the next step is to investigate how to stabilize it so to harness its energy.

[slinky]

Mr. S says he remembers the 'Impending ice age warnings' in 1975
The Fiction Of Climate Science: Why the climatologists get it wrong

[Morrolan]

he can't even get it to 'work' himself, thus, it doesn't... unless a process is reliable and replicable (independently), it doesn't exist.

If we had this type of thinking thomas edison would never invented the light bulb. What I mean is that principal of the light bulb had been around for years just nobody had got the light to emit stably without burning out. So the whole idea of the light bulb doesn't exist because nobody got it work reliably? So we ignore it? OMG! That is the whole purpose of scientific research, the process clearly generates energy so the next step is to investigate how to stabilize it so to harness its energy.

i'm so having a sense of déja-vu...

the point of scientific process is to produce reliable and replicable results in order to validate the process. until such time it is (and remains) an interesting concept, but for the purpose that it is intended (production of cheap abundant energy as an alternative to other energy sources), it doesn't exist.

this guy isn't Edison just yet: once he actually has his process, he may be.

[Burbage]

Mr. S says he remembers the 'Impending ice age warnings' in 1975
The Fiction Of Climate Science: Why the climatologists get it wrong

I remember that too. Luckily no one paid any attention to them in 1975. If we had they would probably now be saying that the current warming is just a blip and the Earth is cooling at a dangerous rate.

[Mr Oz]

Mr. S says he remembers the 'Impending ice age warnings' in 1975

Before that is was Global Warming in 50's

[Mr Oz]

this guy isn't Edison just yet: once he actually has his process, he may be.

So we agree
1. Cold Fusion does exists (The independent scientist on 60 minutes proves Pons/Fleischman theory)
2. It is not reliable enough to be of any commercial value YET.

[Morrolan]

this guy isn't Edison just yet: once he actually has his process, he may be.

So we agree
1. Cold Fusion does exists (The independent scientist on 60 minutes proves Pons/Fleischman theory)
2. It is not reliable enough to be of any commercial value YET.

the theory behind cold fusion exists. cold fusion itself has not yet been reliably proven (in a process that generates more energy than it uses).
since we have no scientific viability, we are still rather a distance removed from commercial viability.

[baloo]

ah, Mr Oz is well and truly back.....

[Morrolan]

back on topic:

i quite 'liked' this quote from a climate change scientist, which clearly shows the underlying agenda to move us out of the cities and into caves or something like that (but without wood for a fire):

The first challenge, he says, is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C.

“In brief, wealthy (OECD) nations need to peak emissions by around 2012, achieve at least a 60 per cent reduction in emissions from energy by 2020, and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2030 at the latest.

“Alongside this, the ‘industrialising’ nations (non-OECD) need to peak their collective emissions by around 2025 and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050.”

the OECD "fully decarbonised" in 20 years?? is this guy kidding?

like Burbage said, this has to be the best scam ever:

"give me all your money and i give you a 50/50 chance of this or that happening."

fantastic, so even if we go ahead and completely cut ourselves off from civilization, we'll still have only a 50/50 chance of limiting temperature increase with 2 degrees. thing is, we won't be able to check this at all, since we won't have either global communication, electricity for our measuring instruments and computers or a civilization left around 2050 if these idiots get their way...

[Burbage]

back on topic:

i quite 'liked' this quote from a climate change scientist, which clearly shows the underlying agenda to move us out of the cities and into caves or something like that (but without wood for a fire):

The first challenge, he says, is to get political buy-in to what the science is saying in relation to, at least, a 50:50 chance of not exceeding 2 degrees C.

“In brief, wealthy (OECD) nations need to peak emissions by around 2012, achieve at least a 60 per cent reduction in emissions from energy by 2020, and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2030 at the latest.

“Alongside this, the ‘industrialising’ nations (non-OECD) need to peak their collective emissions by around 2025 and fully decarbonise their energy systems by 2050.”

the OECD "fully decarbonised" in 20 years?? is this guy kidding?

like Burbage said, this has to be the best scam ever:

"give me all your money and i give you a 50/50 chance of this or that happening."

fantastic, so even if we go ahead and completely cut ourselves off from civilization, we'll still have only a 50/50 chance of limiting temperature increase with 2 degrees. thing is, we won't be able to check this at all, since we won't have either global communication, electricity for our measuring instruments and computers or a civilization left around 2050 if these idiots get their way...

Exactly, the 50/50 chance is the summary of the IPCC's advice to government. And it is unscientific garbage. I believe I put forward the scenario that if you give me $2000 there is a 50% chance of me delivering a new fridge to your house tomorrow. But it's worse than that. It's more like if you give me $2000000 there is a 50% chance of me delivering a new fridge to your house.

The liberals in Australia need to come up with a policy that takes into consideration facts that no one can dispute:

A. The world is gradually getting warmer.
B. No one is offering any guarantee that reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide will reverse this warming.
C. Australia reducing its carbon dioxide output to zero will have no effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide.
D. There is no reason to believe that the world will not start getting colder at some point in the near future. If it hasn't begun already.

[Mr Oz]

ah, Mr Oz is well and truly back.....

Just getting started..