Climategate: Gates that are not gates (Commentary)
source: http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/09/climategate-gates-that-are-not-gates-a-new-series/
-
-
- afitzgerald
- added this
(Image: http://gawker.com/5422290/sarah-palins-washington-post-op+ed-debunked)
There are few things that make me more catatonically depressed than the partisan shouting match we call news today. I get it, controversial partisan statements mean more viewers which means more money which in turn means more controversial partisan rejoinders. I understand the financial imperative here, I'm no news-biz-hayseed. But I have to say, it sucks and it's dangerous. It sucks because it's boring (blah blah HuffPo blah blah Fox News...everybody just STFU and focus on the news, please). It's dangerous because it distorts anything a few people disagree with into an equal-time-required rancorous partisan debate.
Case in point: Today the Washington Post let Sarah Palin publish an Op-Ed in its newspaper. I'm not going to do them the courtesy of linking to it. (Here's a good point-by-point rejoinder from the Atlantic though: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/palins_boycott_copenhagen_op-ed_annotate...) In it, Ms. Palin calls on Obama to boycott Copenhagen because of the "climategate" leaked emails. Despite plenty of explanations in non-partisan press that the emails, though embarrassing in tone, do not represent any sort of actual shift in the science around climate change - the Post was so click/viewer-hungry as to let this climategate thing roll on in its pages.
Hence our new series:
-GATES THAT ARE NOT -GATES!
(Credit due to Josh at Current Comedy who coined "FAILs that are not FAILs": http://blogs.current.com/comedy/2009/10/01/some-fails-that-i-dont-think-are-fail...)
Now I already missed Kanyegate this year, but I think climategate is a good one to start with. I'm calling it, it's not a -gate!
Why? Let me let Time magazine explain it to you. (I mean c'mon, Time is about the safest down-the-middle reporting you can get.)
"4. Do the e-mails weaken the scientific case for global warming? Put it this way: when it comes to climate-science analysis from the representative of the world's biggest oil-producing state [Saudi Arabia], it's wise to be suspicious. In the weeks since the e-mails first became public, many climate scientists and policy experts have looked through them, and they report that the correspondence does not contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, which has been decades in the making. "The content of the stolen e-mails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming," wrote 25 leading U.S. scientists in a letter to Congress on Dec. 4. "The body of evidence that underlies our understanding of human-caused global warming remains robust.""
(Link: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html)
I'm taking a stand. It's not about climate change and it's not about left vs right. It's about -gates. I'm asking my fellow Americans to carefully consider what we grant "-gate" status to. Watergate was a big honkin' controversy that deserved the barrels of ink spilled over its progression. And it was even partisan. It was an IMPORTANT partisan scandal. But not every disagreement that happens across the screens of cable news deserves this holiest of suffixes.
I hate to break it to everyone, but I think Climategate falls short of -gate status.
Okay, rant concluded. Thanks.
PS - If you're going to disagree in the comments, please read through the TIME article first. Here's the link one more time: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082-2,00.html
-
- groups:
- Community, Current Tonight, News_Featured, Current propaganda
-
-
ryan8566
-
if nixon's guys broke into a building that did not end in -gate, what would be using?
- 2 years ago
-
ryan8566
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
ryan8566:
Good question.
- 2 years ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
Dave_Andersen
-
@tommic: I notice that neither you nor any of the others congratulating this writer are dealing with all the actual emails I posted above. What are you afraid of?
Wouldn't it be really, really good if our planet is not doomed? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we found that the warming that had occurred wasn't our fault? If they have--as the actual emails from the actual scientists posted above prove--been militating against having their work reviewed by deleting it instead of responding to legal FOIA requests, would you still want to defend them?
Please note: The UEA is a public institution; their work was paid for by grants from multiple governments, their work was the basis upon with the UN IPCC report was built, and they and their "scientist" defenders act as if they have all rights to privacy. If it was the Bush Administration accused of deleting data and emails, how would you have responded?
- 2 years ago
-
Dave_Andersen
-
-
samthesixth
-
First you engage in a vitriolic attack on me and accuse me of things I did not say. Then you admit that I did not say them and continue on with your vitriol. At no point did I take issue with anything you cited as having happened. Your anger is misdirected.
Here's to your free speech!
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
smallgod
-
samthesixth:
And here's to you, samthesixth, for not flagging his comment even though it contained a vague 'personal attack' under Current's rules of use. Thank you for not being a pussy, like so many people on here are.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
samthesixth
-
samthesixth:
Free speech for all, ALWAYS!
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
tommic
-
Samthsixth, you didn't claim anything but your postings indicate that you do not beieve in climate change and those things I listed Have happened. It does not matter what you say because they are true. Now I am done even responding to your idiotic postings Bye forever moron
- 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
captain_insano
-
Damn I thought this was a post saying she had done Playboy. Thats all the news i ever want to hear about her.
- 2 years ago
-
captain_insano
-
-
MoonLoon
-
Falsifying data, twisting facts, to fit an opinion or objective is nothing new for scientific researchers. Throw in millions , if not billions of $'s and anyone can be bought. If Global Warming is fact and caused by mankind the damage caused by these nitwits is incalulable. However, if human caused Global Warming is not real then the hacker finding these e-mails should get both Obama's and Gore's Nobel prize.
- 2 years ago
-
MoonLoon
-
-
maasanova
-
I will now quote the top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, and his statements from June 2008, long before Climategate, that warming fears: are the "worst scientific scandal in the history’. Dr. Itoh, is an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University,
He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history.”
“I also cited the opinions of Dr. Akasofu (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) in the last part of the book. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists’. . . I sincerely think he is correct,” Itoh wrote.
So it went from all media television outlets, save for Russian Times and Fox News, completely ignoring the controversy, hoping people would just lose interest,
To having a few half baked commentators like Bill Nye the Science Guy and Al Gore trying to say that there is nothing substancial in the e-mails, despite CRU East Anglia having to step down because of the science fudging controversy,
To now commetators complaining about partisan politics and sensationalism, yet featuring a blog post with the most sensational and polarizing politian today: Sarah Palin and continuing to say "move along, nothing to see here."
- 2 years ago
-
maasanova
-
-
smallgod
-
maasanova:
For the record, I f*cking HATE Bill Nye.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
WhiteNoise
-
TRIGGER OPTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE !
http://current.com/items/91654040_trigger-option-on-climate-change.htm - 2 years ago
-
WhiteNoise
-
-
animaladvocate
-
she is such an idiot
- 2 years ago
-
animaladvocate
-
-
smallgod
-
animaladvocate:
Yep, that's the knee-jerk response the Post was probably anticipating to further the overall agenda of taxing everyone for everything they do to the point that no one can afford to live or have children.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
tommic
-
Samthesixth, how bout dealing with all the lies, disinformation, and obsfucation that people like you spew forth. I guess glaciers aren't melting, Pine Island glacier in Antartica isn't losing sixteen meters a year in depth or the gulf stream isn't slowing down. I suppose the release of methane gas in Siberia and Alaska is not happening either. The oceans didn't warm up 1 degree on average worldwide in the last two years. People like you need to do nothing your beyond help
- 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
samthesixth
-
tommic:
Wow, such a vitriolic personal attack! Why you go that route instead of sticking to friendly debate is indicative of the weakness of your position or at best your inability to defend it? At no time have I engaged in personal attacks against you. Now, the specifics....
"Samthesixth, how bout dealing with all the lies, disinformation, and obfuscation that people like you spew forth" I don't know how to respond to that. What lie disinformation or obfuscation did I engage in? Who are people like me? Or perhaps you have a perception of me and are painting me with other people's broad brushes?
"I guess glaciers aren't melting, Pine Island glacier in Antartica isn't losing sixteen meters a year in depth or the gulf stream isn't slowing down. I suppose the release of methane gas in Siberia and Alaska is not happening either. The oceans didn't warm up 1 degree on average worldwide in the last two years." I never said any of the above. You are pulling this out of your.....hat?
"People like you need to do nothing your beyond help" This takes the place of any substantive argument you may, or may not, have? Too funny, too weak.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
smallgod
-
tommic:
Did you go measure all those things? Because a lot of scientists have been paid a lot of money, just like the TV news anchors who 'act' certain ways and 'believe' certain things because FOX or MSNBC or whomever writes them a nice check, for their interpretations of data and measurements. It seems like a plan to make humans seem disgusting to one another. And it seems to be working, especially with the liberals.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
SleepDirt
-
tommic:
"It seems like a plan to make humans seem disgusting to one another. And it seems to be working, especially with the liberals."
Wow, does it?
A secret conspiracy by a secret global cabal of evil scientists, highly paid by wealthy liberal special interest slush funds headed by George Soros and ACORN's Nazi Youth to sap the world's wealth by disseminating propaganda against poor, innocent oft-maligned industrial pollution.
Wow, there goes another highly-paid scientist in his Bentley on the way to his Upper East Side penthouse. LOL. - 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
smallgod
-
tommic:
Um. No. I said that because liberals now, generally, are very in line with the current climate crisis and the political actions they think, or have been told to think, need to be taken in order to 'fix the world'. The media has played on the sympathies of liberals in general.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
Dantronamus
-
The First Global Revolution of the Club of Rome
- “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome.“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum such as motivation seemed to have ceased to exist or have yet to be found. The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor…Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose…
Democracy will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy [of the elites and their minions] then is humanity itself.”
AL GORE LIED!!!!
- 2 years ago
-
Dantronamus
-
-
Dantronamus
-
In addition to education, modern propaganda must build on societies need for safety, security, and community. It must exploit human weaknesses in a comprehensive, total, and unyielding manner through all available channels. This is accomplished by inundating individuals with constant propaganda such as the news, youtube, magazines, and teachers.ons. As previously mentioned, the large media outlets refuse to provide dissenting opinion. The UN now has its own youtube channel called “Raise your voice and change climate change.” The cover of the Economist on newsstands today reads “Stopping Climate Change,” and every news article I read uses the word “consensus.”
The end effect of this organized media blitz is to focus the public on one event, climate change, to the exclusion of all the rest. The ability to set the public agenda and determine social perceptions is a powerful tool in social psychology. For it is clear that when individuals are faced with large social opposition or view themselves as out of the norm, individuals typically move towards the mean. The mean in this case is fascism and socialism.
- 2 years ago
-
Dantronamus
-
-
Dantronamus
-
Let’s review a few recent headlines. Yesterday in Columbia, Missouri notebooks were being given to students with Obama’s slogan and campaign picture on the front. Children have been videotaped literally signing President Obama’s praises and the University of Minnesota is discussing how to best reindoctrinate “biased” individuals. Today, there is news about Obama’s education czar’s educating children with “black books” which included discussions of grotesque sexual acts.
Around the world, educational systems, beginning in elementary school, are organized to promote social change. In some instances, children can now attend public schools such as The Little Village Lawndale High School in Chicago and focus exclusively on social justice classes. To highlight the calculated attempt to indoctrinate our youth, in March 2009 the United States Congress passed the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act (GIVE). Under section 6104 of the bill, entitled “Duties,” the legislation states “Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”
- 2 years ago
-
Dantronamus
-
-
Dantronamus
-
Despite the role of the media, our most pernicious enemy is found in the classroom. The first goal of modern propaganda is to develop conditioned reflexes through education and social dialogue. Jacques Ellul describes the role of education as “pre-propaganda.” Thus, it is no accident that climate change, social justice, and sex education are taught to young students, while there is no religious acceptance or comprehensive discussion of the principles of liberty and freedom.
- 2 years ago
-
Dantronamus
-
-
Dantronamus
-
Al gore lied!!! Most people believe propaganda is just “lies” or “tall stories” that influence the weak and feeble minded. However, modern propaganda is a sophisticated and calculating machine that invades every aspect of our lives. The formidable author Jacques Ellul in his expansive work on the subject describes this process as designed to create proselytes and militants rather than wise or reasonable men. In support of Ellul, a judge in Britain recently ruled that Tim Nicholson’s climate views “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations.” Now environment organizations and fanatics such as Greenpeace can literally join the religiously deluded.
- 2 years ago
-
Dantronamus
-
-
tommic
-
Climategate, what a joke this is. Non believers in climate change now claim its all based on missinformation. How about all the lies, denial and disinformation the people who don't believe in climate change have spewed forth over the years. This whole scandal is just BS
- 2 years ago
-
tommic
-
-
samthesixth
-
tommic:
How about dealing with what was in the emails?
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
smallgod
-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100019206/climategate-barack-obam...
Hey, I found a commentary, too!
"When the EPA published its “Endangerment Finding” on greenhouse gases and proposed rule, back in April, almost every paragraph of the text (Federal Register, April 24, 2009, pp 18886-18910) cited as authority the IPCC’s 2007 Report, which the Agency acknowledges it “relies on most heavily”. And whence came the main input on climate change to that report?
Yes, that’s right! You’ve got it: from Phil Jones, Michael Mann and the rest of the lads at the CRU, East Anglia. From the innovative, creative “scientists” who wanted to “beat the crap” out of a climate change sceptic; who “just completed Mike’s Nature trick”; who “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”; who deleted e-mails in the interests of science; who tried to prevent publication of dissenters’ views; who coined the historic phrase “hide the decline”.
Those jokers are the main authority for the extravagant claims in the IPCC report and, by extension, for the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”. That is the authority that is being invoked to overturn the principles of 1776 in the United States. The Protocols of the Elders of Norwich are the justification for EPA tyranny. It is with that weighty evidence at his back that Barack Obama is going to Copenhagen to sell out American taxpayers to Third World subsidy junkies, profiteering “green” corporations and the ever entrepreneurial Al Gore. This is the steal of the millennium: forget the Great Train Robbery and the Brinks Mat caper – these hoodlums are targeting $45 trillion."
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
WhiteNoise
-

-
50 years of ecology education wiped out by an e-mail... Thanks Mindfuck Inc. !
The climate denial industry is out to dupe the public. And it's working
Think environmentalists are stooges? You're the unwitting recruit of a hugely powerful oil lobby – I've got the proof
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-den...PS : Cap & trade and melting ice caps /permafrost are 2 different dossier !
Please show enough intellectual honesty to treat them accordingly for blurring the line only adds to the confusion & who do you think this serves better ?
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." - Noam Chomsky
- 2 years ago
-
WhiteNoise
-
-
smallgod
-
But in college we were never allowed to use TIME to prove anything due to the fact that it's all opinion and owned by Time Warner (CNN) who has political interest in these topics.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
bike10
-
The only knowledge Sarah Palin has of global warming is to see the ice melt in her ice tea.
- 2 years ago
-
bike10
-
-
Ares
-

-
bike10:
Actually that's not global warming, that's thermodynamics.
- 2 years ago
-
Ares
-
-
royulery
-
it is a scandal. it is always the little lie for everyones best interest and with the best of intentions. take the high road and say; that was fucked up, what's next.
- 2 years ago
-
royulery
-
-
Dave_Andersen
-
-
Propaganda, pure propaganda is what this "commentary" is. That's an awful lot of words you threw up there, but you are ignoring the actual emails sent by actual so-called scientists planning actual conspiracies. How can I make that claim? Well, I've been reading the actual emails. You can, too, instead of taking this commentator's word for it that there's "nothing to see here, move along, citizen!", go here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/ and start searching for interesting words. Like FOI, FOIA, hide, and try some of the popular search terms.
Some of the most interesting emails concern the requests for other scientists to delete emails.
Found here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=893&filename=1212073451.txtConsider this: There were multiple people involved with the requests to delete data. None of them reported anyone for making such a request. If they all had such high integrity--heck if even one had any reasonable level of integrity--wouldn't such a request have been reported, and the requester(s) disciplined? Shouldn't such requests be anathema to actual scientists?
There were multiple emails concerning hiding the data from review. Here's an example: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them." Find it here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=485&filename=1106338806.txt
Why would good, solid scientists have to hide their data from review? Is it possible that they didn't want honest peer review?
Considering the programs written at the CRU, independent software engineers have reviewed them and have been surprised by the lack of reasonable in-line documentation, the fact that things like "fudge factors" were included, and that some subroutines failed to process some data with no warning to the users.
Find that here: http://bit.ly/5xuh0F
There are many other concerns. For example:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=802&filename=1182255717.txtHere we see a challenge to Phil Jones et al concerning meteorological station data.
The challenger finds data that shows that a significant number of the stations used for data reported by the CRU in 1990 had no histories, so shouldn't have been used. Others had been moved a substantial distance. To the challenger, CRU personnel claim that the data isn't available, since it had been a long time. Internally, however, they talk about how they have been shielding their data from FOIA requests by the challenger. Find this here:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=802&filename=1182255717.txtDoes that sound like solid science?
Ther are many, many more. An interesting thing to do is to check through the popular search terms and see what comes up.
No matter how much people like Al Gore and this author try to make it go away by ignoring it, the truth is most inconveniently more powerful.
- 2 years ago
-
Dave_Andersen
-
-
JonRaymond
-
The kicker is, the more they do it the more people see through it and are turned off and go find the news on the internet. It's like Republicans trying to convince the world they are for real.
- 2 years ago
-
JonRaymond
-
-
samthesixth
-
JonRaymond:
Or like Dems trying to convince us that they actually care for the masses.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
smallgod
-
JonRaymond:
@samthesixth, hahahaha. so true.
- 2 years ago
-
smallgod
-
-
Dave_Andersen
-
Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Monckton? Or anybody else?
- 2 years ago
-
Dave_Andersen
-
-
samthesixth
-
Dave_Andersen:
Because the arrogant billionaire Gore thinks the debate is over.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
Dagum
-
Of course current will white-wash climate gate, Current was Co-founded by AL Gore! The charlatan he is
http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/climatology_dees.jpgGlobal warming alarmists see:
http://www.infowars.com/gores-current-tv-website-blocks-climategate-searches/ - 2 years ago
-
Dagum
-
-
UrbanGypsy
-
Great commentary, agreed completely.
- 2 years ago
-
UrbanGypsy
-
-
AsperGirl
-
You wrote: "Case in point: Today the Washington Post let Sarah Palin publish an Op-Ed in its newspaper. I'm not going to do them the courtesy of linking to it. (Here's a good point-by-point rejoinder from the Atlantic though: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/palins_boycott_copenhagen_op-ed_annotate..."
So you won't link Palin's Op Ed but you link the rebuttal? LOL. How well you exemplify the hostile bias you complain about.
I read no further. Not because you might or might not have a point, but like you said, one gets sick of trying to digest the kind of slop written by people ruled by their agenda.
- 2 years ago
-
AsperGirl
-
-
bushama
-
AsperGirl:
lol excellent point at the end, I missed that
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
SleepDirt
-
AsperGirl:
What, you can't find the Washington Post or the Google?
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
Future_America
-
-
http://current.com/items/91646697_sarah-palin-pens-false-and-misleading-op-ed-on...
Awesome post.
Here's another article that debunks Sarah Palin's Op-Ed. (link)
Also more info on "climategate." (video)
- 2 years ago
-
Future_America
-
-
bushama
-
I wish the warmers could learn from their past mistakes and think things out before they act, most of the warmers dont have a clue what the cap n trade scheme is about. Remember Ethanol and how it was going to save us from global warming, well how many people do you think died of starvation because we were putting food in our gas tanks. Is there anyone that works at current that isnt biased and can offer a balanced report about the current global warming crap?
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
jeffissleeping
-
bushama:
The overall goal of an emissions trading plan (or, 'cap and trade') is to minimize the cost of meeting a set emissions target. The cap is an enforceable limit on emissions that is usually lowered over time — aiming towards a national emissions reduction target. In other systems a portion of all traded credits must be retired, causing a net reduction in emissions each time a trade occurs. In many existing cap-and-trade systems across the world, organizations which do not pollute may also participate, thus environmental groups can purchase and retire allowances or credits and hence drive up the price of the remainder according to the law of demand. Corporations can also prematurely retire allowances by donating them to a nonprofit entity and then be eligible for a tax deduction.
Hence, it's not a scheme. It's a proven model to help reach a predetermined goal. But since the Coal Lobby has so much monetary and congressional influence, you get your info secondhand from people you already love to believe...
- 2 years ago
-
jeffissleeping
-
-
kennymotown
-
bushama:
That was awesome jeffissleeping!
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
bushama
-
-
bushama:
I got my info from people like you and also the opposition who pretty much say the same thing
http://current.com/items/91631108_the-story-of-cap-trade.htmcan i ask where you got your info?
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
bushama
-
bushama:
It's a proven model to help reach a predetermined goal
I would also like to see info on how it is proven that this will work, thanks Im just curious , maybe your are right.
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
bushama
-
bushama:
nevermind i see you got your info from wikipedia but am still curious on how it has been proven to work
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
jeffissleeping
-
bushama:
well, the cap and trade model was tested and proved with the acid rain/sulfur emissions reductions set in place, in parts, in the Clean Air Act of 1990. it basically made states toggle some form of cap and trade that worked for them, and many did...it was a....
government regulatory program (GASP!) from Bush One's term...(double gasp!)
created under, i think Title 4 of the Act, it authorized emissions trading to reduce the costs of controlling emissions of sulfur dioxide, since that shit is dirty and expensive....
if you're more of a fan of pretty charts, read here:
- 2 years ago
-
jeffissleeping
-
-
bushama
-
bushama:
thanks for the link jeff I will look at them in awhile but the clean air act, if Im not mistaken also included something about what i talked about above, that is ethanol.
- 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
jeffissleeping
-
bushama:
yeah, 'ol ethanol...why can't we grow a shitload of corn (enough for food and fuel) is beyond me lol
- 2 years ago
-
jeffissleeping
-
-
Ajil
-
bushama:
The Story of Stuff
Created by the same production team and lady of the video posted by Bushama.
I hope those that oppose the concepts of climate change are not arrogant towards the environmental crisis all together. The way in which we are living is unsustainable. Bushama, that video you posted, it discussed the need to do something about the climate, but to not rely on the government's proposed cap n trade plan. I dont see how it helped much of your arguments. Here is another video, explaining how we cannot continue living so excessively and way beyond our means.A quote from the video; "If everyone lived like (The United States) does, we would need 3 to 5 planets."
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=storyofstuffproject#p/u/1/9GorqroigqM
- 2 years ago
-
Ajil
-
-
ozoneocean
-
bushama:
That's plain foolish. The only "balance" is to start from a position were you admit global warming is real. That's what all the experts tell us. It's like treating evolution as real in a debate with creationists- it is NOT balanced to treat something factual like evolution or climate change the same as you would creationism or global warming denial. That's moronic.
- 2 years ago
-
ozoneocean
-
-
bushama
-
bushama:
Hello, Jeff I looked into and you are right I have found no evidence yet against the cap n trade with sulfer dioxide but Im not sure if the two bills are the same or not, still looking for some comparison on them but one thing is for sure this new scheme is much much bigger and my main argument is that I dont think cap n trade on co2 is needed because I dont think co2 is bad.
Aji , i posted the Story of cap n trade to show what people who believe in AGW thought of it.
and to ozoneocean you are wrong all expert do not tell us AGW is real, quite the oposite
Global warming petition project:
http://www.petitionproject.org - 2 years ago
-
bushama
-
-
Ajil
-
bushama:
bushama. are you seriously trying to take the stance that CO2 is not a pollutant?
Please re-consider being irrational. I understand you might not agree with the notion that man has created the world to heat up in temperature by emitting CO2, but do not try and argue that CO2 is not a pollutant all together.
Here is a list of things about CO2 that are facts, based on evidence;
-CO2 is a major part of nature, and for good reason.
-Trees need CO2 to produce Oxygen.
-We produce CO2 when we, and just about every other animal exhales.
-Nature has been producing CO2 long before humans were around.Now this is the part that people like bushama forget to add to the case of facts; nature has never seen the production of CO2 like it does now. Coming out of the Industrial Revolution, major development was and is still reliant on the burning of fossil fuels. American corporations admit to burning somewhere around 4,000,000,000 lb of CO2 a year. You cannot say that nature will be handle it if we choose to carry on living like this. If you do choose to make such a claim, provide some scientific evidence. Now I have heard the theory that CO2 levels have been found to follow the levels of temperature, not direct them, which means the huge increase in the production and release of CO2 will not heat up the world. But those that support that theory are not willing to take the stance producing all this CO2 will not actually have an effect on the climate, because that would be irrational. There is still a climate crisis, which is man made, and we will witness extreme weather behavior.
These emails may discuss a miscalculation of one year, but do not overlook all the years of evidence that support the theory of a man made climate crisis.
- 2 years ago
-
Ajil
-
-
Future_America
- This comment was removed by its owner.
-
Future_America
-
-
kennymotown
-
Some more interesting facts about deniers.
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
kennymotown
-
kennymotown:
Man what do you want him too use a horse and buggy? that would take years to get the word out. Oh I forgot he's also not allowed to have lights on in his mansion. That one you guys use really cracks me up!
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
SleepDirt
-
kennymotown:
Can you name another former VPOTUS that would risk flying on a aircraft with the general public? I didn't think so.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
samthesixth
-
kennymotown:
Dan Quayle and Walter Mondale fly commercially. Kerry says he will fly to Copenhagen commercially.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
SleepDirt
-
kennymotown:
I'm sure both will write when they get work.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
ozoneocean
-
It deserves the "gate" suffix in that Watergate was a controversy because some idiots got caught breaking in and trying to steal information that could use to defame their opponents. With this e-mail thing, similarly some idiots broke in and stole some information for the purposes of defamation, only we call it "hacking" in this instance.
It's not the use of "gate" that's wrong, it's the focus of the news. It should be only on these criminals, the idiots who illegally gained this information, the fact that the purpose of that was ONLY to defame, and the fact that it doesn't. - 2 years ago
-
ozoneocean
-
-
samthesixth
-
ozoneocean:
It wasn't to defame people it was to illustrate attempted manipulations of very important data.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
Varex_Sythe
-
ozoneocean:
Didn't it turn out that the e-mails didn't actually prove that any data was manipulated?
- 2 years ago
-
Varex_Sythe
-
-
occhipij [removed]
- This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
-
occhipij [removed]
-
-
kennymotown
-
occhipij:
Today the data from 2000 to 2009 is in and it was warmer than the 90's that were warmer than the 80's that were warmer than the 70's. 5 of the warmest years in recorded weather history during the 2000's and you still continue to deny?
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
ddhboy
-
occhipij:
Replace "science" with journalism, and "advocacy" with political parties, and this would be my favorite video
- 2 years ago
-
ddhboy
-
-
kennymotown
-
occhipij:
Well I still don't understand why doing the right thing and getting rid of fossil fuels to be siding on the chance that science may be right is such a bad thing. And it may be that we can breath clean air again, we here in Oregon still burn benzine in our gasoline because thats the cheapest way the oil company's can get rid of the cancer causing by product of oil refining. The true cost of fossil fuel burning is 10 times more than what we are led to believe with the medical problems it causes.
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
kennymotown
-
occhipij:
That is the future of jobs and job creating. I can't stand it when people curl up in the fetal position and refuse to do anything. There is so much potential in finding new energy and it's like a huge challenge like going to the moon.
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
samthesixth
-
occhipij:
Being fetal and doing nothing is as worthless as being a lemming following the other lemmings right off the cliff because of the "crisis du jour."
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
SleepDirt
-
occhipij:
Lemmings don't jump off cliffs en masse. That myth has been long debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp
See? Science. it's not so bad.
- 2 years ago
-
SleepDirt
-
-
samthesixth
-
occhipij:
I guess I need a better analogy for the people who act without taking the time to understand how their actions will impact the issue of concern.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
vans1170
-
sarah palin is RETARDED
- 2 years ago
-
vans1170
-
-
Ares
-
vans1170:
You misspelled her last name when you called her retarded just now. I thought you'd like to know how deliciously ironic that is.
- 2 years ago
-
Ares
-
-
vans1170
-
vans1170:
whoops, sorry i slipped a letter, typos happen
- 2 years ago
-
vans1170
-
-
Nephwrack
-
i'm sick of ppl tacking "gate" on the end of a word in order to try and manufacture buzz. (usually faux entertainment and the rest of the MSM)
- 2 years ago
-
Nephwrack
-
-
kennymotown
-
Not to mention the E-Mails in question were from ten years ago and it was two scientist arguing back and forth about judging tree rings and some other scientific way of interpreting climate change. BIG DEAL, but as usual the na sayers grab hold of anything like the Oil company payed scientist disclaiming global warning for financial reasons. I can only imagine these very same type of people saying so what when Pompay started rumbling.
- 2 years ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
indecisiveh
-
kennymotown:
considering the fact that the data was not deleted and actually included in the final report destroys that argument. These e-mails are over-hyped plain and simple.
- 2 years ago
-
indecisiveh
-
-
indecisiveh
-
kennymotown:
I understand, that you may not like what this e-mail has to say. No one is trying to excuse these e-mails. Falsifying data is a deplorable act in the science community. That being said, how do these e-mails prove anything scientifically. Are you suggesting throw out all of the data and ignore excessive carbon emissions? shall we continue to blow the tops off mountains and drill off the coast for more fossil fuels? How about discontinuing those pesky efforts to create fuel efficient vehicles that emit less pollution? What would you rather do?
- 2 years ago
-
indecisiveh
-
-
samthesixth
-
kennymotown:
Some of the emails were from 2009 and 2008.
- 2 years ago
-
samthesixth
-
-
indecisiveh
-
Very nicely put.
Tigergate has been used btw. Any news story gets gate added to it for some reason.
- 2 years ago
-
indecisiveh
-
-
jeffissleeping
-
haha, great post...and so true!
people are so freakin' quick to throw a "-gate" around to promote a scandal...it's just too easy and too overdone.
has anyone used "Tigergate" yet? if not, then it's mine and no one can use it :)
- 2 years ago
-
jeffissleeping
