Happycamper's House of Denial brought to you by ExxonMobil

[Happycamper]

Some more credible scientists who dont agree:

In fact, there is a large body of highly-respected academic experts who fiercely contest this thesis: people such as Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a disillusioned former IPCC member, and Dr Tom Segalstad, head of geology at Oslo University, who has stated that most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCCs view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible

 

[Happycamper]

The emails emerging seem to show many scientists actually do have doubts

Very interesting article today's Daily Mail: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...em.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo#ixzz0ZYr4kPIj


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-DID-send-them.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

 

[Happycamper]

Another British scientist - Chris Folland of the Met Offices Hadley Centre - wrote the same day that using Briffas data might be awkward, because it suggested the past was too warm. This, he lamented, dilutes the message rather significantly.
Over the next few days, Briffa, Jones, Folland and Mann emailed each other furiously. Mann was fearful that if Briffas trees made the IPCC diagram, the sceptics [would] have a field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith [in them] - I dont think that doubt is scientifically justified, and Id hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!
Finally, Briffa changed the way he computed his data and submitted a revised version. This brought his work into line for earlier centuries, and cooled them significantly. But alas, it created another, potentially even more serious, problem.
According to his tree rings, the period since 1960 had not seen a steep rise in temperature, as actual temperature readings showed - but a large and steady decline, so calling into question the accuracy of the earlier data derived from tree rings.
This is the context in which, seven
weeks later, Jones presented his trick - as simple as it was deceptive.
All he had to do was cut off Briffas inconvenient data at the point where the decline started, in 1961, and replace it with actual temperature readings, which showed an increase.
On the hockey stick graph, his line is abruptly terminated - but the end of the line is obscured by the other lines.

@ Reece regarding 'trick'

Not so innocent when you realise that a trick can also mean selectively leaving out data (and hiding it) when it doesnt support the theory you are trying to prove, but including it again when it does.

 

[Happycamper]

Some of the most controversial leaked emails concern attempts by Jones and his colleagues to avoid disclosure of the CRUs temperature database - its vast library of readings from more than 1,000 weather stations around the world, the ultimate resource that records how temperatures have changed.
In one email from 2005, Jones warned Mann not to leave such data lying around on searchable websites, because you never know who is trawling them.

Critics such as McIntyre had been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone.

(Sorry for the spams but these are really relevent news items just coming out regarding leaked emails)

 

[stickstones]

Grat links camper. One of my favorite quotes:

Pielke agreed. After Climategate, the surface temperature record is being called into question. To experts such as McIntyre and Pielke, perhaps the most baffling thing has been the near-unanimity over global warming in the worlds mainstream media - a unanimity much greater than that found among scientists.

 

[Happycamper]

Climate change is "natural and not man-made", according to a report that lists "100 reasons why" to back the theory.

Political analyst Jim McConalogue wrote the report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...1/Climate-change-is-natural-not-man-made.html

He added that after Copenhagen, voters will see what travesty has been done in their name, as foolish politicians and indifferent industry associations have engulfed their countries in emissions legislation.

 

[Happycamper]

I really can't take it anymore, they have no idea.

It's just think of a number.....

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/17/un-leaked-report-copenhagen-3c?CMP=AFCYAH

 

[Beezleb]

I believe man plays a minor role in the larger evolution and very long seasons of the planet. I tend to look at the past ice ages as just the planet going into winter and warming like a summer and whatnot with many many little seasons in between. We just dont live through the big planetary seasons as we simply do not live that long and are left with more people yelping about the here and now and perhaps not as much as the larger picture.

I dont think nature really cares much about people, it was here way before us and will be way after us.

 

[Happycamper]

Very nicely put Beezleb.

And after trudging around (and extremely miserable) all day in the snow I'm trying to find the funny side to all this, and this so called global warming, but i can't. Cold just does not agree with me, bring on the sunshine. If co2 causes warming, lets get pumping more out because it's just too cold.

 

[aero18]

Whether humans are at fault for global warming or not, the efforts underlying the movement will, and should, have good repercussions for us.

 

[Purple-Days]

That cartoon sums it up.

 

[SpiralArchitect]

Totally.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Happycamper]

*Takes off the rose coloured glasses
There is a little bit more to it than that.

 

[Frickr]

i dont think taxes are the key. even if we are to blame, why must us, as amercain citizens pay for what some large corperation is doing? dont they make enough money to pay for themselves? i tihnk theres better ways we can go about this then imposing new taxes to be payed to an off shore bank account.

i dont see any of these world leaders doing anything to help lessen their impact on carbon emissions. do they really need private jets, manions, and yachts? you never hear anything about what they themselves are going to do to curve their carbon consumption, for all they care it doesnt matter. If these people are so concerned about the CO2 being released in the air, then i want to see dramatic efforts on their parts to curve their own consumption before they preach to me what is right or wrong. Lead by example. and so far their example is shit.

 

[Happycamper]

Exactly Frickr.

With the World leaders you can almost see the desperation in their eyes that the public must perceive them as fighting for this Treaty. Gordon Brown has only one agenda, not going full out for this would be total political suicide.

Yet their air fares won't be going up 140%.

 

[Frickr]

http://www.infowars.com/final-copenhagen-text-includes-global-transaction-tax/

The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.

As Lord Monckton, Alex Jones and others warned, the notion that the globalists would achieve nothing at Copenhagen has likely been a ruse all along. The elite look set to ram through the lions share of their agenda, which would include a massive global government tax at a cost of at least $3,000 a year for American families already laboring under a devastating recession, double digit unemployment and a reduction in living standards.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED AMERICA? IS THIS GOING TO HELP THE PROBLEM?

 

[rayski]

http://www.infowars.com/final-copenhagen-text-includes-global-transaction-tax/

The final Copenhagen draft agreement which was hammered out in the early hours of Friday morning includes provisions for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank, as President Obama prepares to bypass Congress by approving a massive transfer of wealth from America into globalist hands.

As Lord Monckton, Alex Jones and others warned, the notion that the globalists would achieve nothing at Copenhagen has likely been a ruse all along. The elite look set to ram through the lions share of their agenda, which would include a massive global government tax at a cost of at least $3,000 a year for American families already laboring under a devastating recession, double digit unemployment and a reduction in living standards.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANTED AMERICA? IS THIS GOING TO HELP THE PROBLEM?

The Copenhagen Accord is here:http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/climate-change/copenhagen-accord-4.30pm.pdf
There is no mention of a global tax on financial transactions.

 

[Frickr]

and you think that they are just going to admit to this?? american news is all sensored. washingtonpost is sensored.

 

[rayski]

and you think that they are just going to admit to this?? american news is all sensored. washingtonpost is sensored.

The accord is the accord. That's what they agreed to. The greenies aren't very happy about it. The Guardian says it's extremely weak. How could you think it's so bad?

 

[Frickr]

look at #8 in the accord. now tell me where is that money going to come from if there isnt a tax levied? its not gonna be made up out of thin air (even though thats what the fed is doing with our money supply)

 

[Purple-Days]

It's a tiny bubble... anybody got a pin.
http://www.leenks.com/link246991.html

 

[manchild]

So the amount of funding that is proposed increases incrementally from $30bill over the first 2 years to $100bill in 2020.

I cannot see how this would translate to "a massive global government tax at a cost of at least $3,000 a year for American families"

A quick google search for number of households in the US gives an answer of well above 100mill. (I know this is not a direct realtion to amount of families but it's a hard figure to calculate and given we are relying on such sources in this thread we'll go with it!) So assuming it's just US families who will be raising these funds. That means $1000 a family a year to fund this thing in 2020. That's some pretty simple calculation there which is far less than the alarmist figure of $3000. Now we all know that US families will not be funding this, the cost will be spread throughout the entire developed world which means the cost will be minimal when applied to each individual family.

Didn't George Bush deliver US taxpayers tax cuts in the magnitude of trillions? How much money was thrown at the financial institutions in the past year?

The financial arguements against doing something just don't stand up to the simple maths.

ninja edit for spelling and punctuation!

 

[manchild]

It's a tiny bubble... anybody got a pin.
http://www.leenks.com/link246991.html

Great little clip there Tom. I love how we can effectively travel back in time by simply looking through a telescope.

 

[Beezleb]

I would be more open to some ideas of taxing and whatnot if their was absolute visibility and accountability in the planning, implementation and running of the programs that was engineered to achieve goals rather than political or other agendas.

Dont get too upset things didnt work out. It would be extremely rare for the world to come to an agreement on anything for the reasons of the greater good. Its all politics and bs with some truth splatters here and their but I do not believe any of this is about the environment at the end of the day.

 

[manchild]

I must say it's all pretty interesting regardless of what side of the arguement you sit.

If only we could see into the future by looking through a telescope..........