Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Winston001]

I just love it when my inate cynicism turns out to be so well justified...

Scientific consensus = we have to find this result or our funding dries up.

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

Who else? Politicians. What politician wants to introduce a new tax which voters don't understand? That's a one-way ticket out of power.

So.....despite all the oil money and fear of voter backlash, we have nations tentatively agreeing to carbon trading and emissions reductions. That says that the evidence produced by scientific studies has the politicians really scared and forced to do something they'd rather ignore.

[Mr Merde]

Thats dum, most c02 emmisions come from the enviroment 1.9 % come from man.
C02 levels have been 4 times higher in history with lower temperatures.

Its a con, a swindle and a load of crap that has become the new age religion for the blind and stupid

According to the samples taken from the ice in the poles, CO2 was higher 120,000 years ago than it is today.

Geologically speaking we are only just comming out of an "Ice Age" (20,000 years). Warming is part of this or we would still be in an ice age.

1000 years ago there was a mini ice age and Greenlad and Iceland got the covering of snow and ice they have today. Proior to that Greenland was known by the Vikings as "vinland" as they grew grapes there and made wine.

[Quasievil]

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies.

yes they do in this situation they are used as political pawns and as a group history have been proved wrong many times before about many issues.
Also many have been eager to sign up to this crapola for simple funding bennifits.
the whole thing is a sham

[huff3r]

yes they do in this situation they are used as political pawns and as a group history have been proved wrong many times before about many issues.
Also many have been eager to sign up to this crapola for simple funding bennifits.
the whole thing is a sham

And any that do actually come out with the truth get squashed and ignored, because all the "big" scientists agree with climate change... only because of the $$$ it puts in their pockets!!

[mashman]

I guess you don't know any scientists. They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

Who else? Politicians. What politician wants to introduce a new tax which voters don't understand? That's a one-way ticket out of power.

So.....despite all the oil money and fear of voter backlash, we have nations tentatively agreeing to carbon trading and emissions reductions. That says that the evidence produced by scientific studies has the politicians really scared and forced to do something they'd rather ignore.

Absolutely! But in order to agree to fight GHG's and pollutants, you need sign the Kyoto Protocol... then it's legal, you agree that your country will take on some of the burden for funding climate change research. The US won't sig the Koyoto Protocol! Why not? Pick a reason, any reason, it'll all come down to money!

[scissorhands]

Absolutely! But in order to agree to fight GHG's and pollutants, you need sign the Kyoto Protocol... then it's legal, you agree that your country will take on some of the burden for funding climate change research. The US won't sig the Koyoto Protocol! Why not? Pick a reason, any reason, it'll all come down to money!

Because they want to continue dividing the masses with mixed messages...and turning red necks and greenies against each other. A lot of profit in dividing.

Meanwhile everything else like privacy legislation goes through government while everyone is arguing with their backs turned.

Like now

[mashman]

Because they want to continue dividing the masses with mixed messages...and turning red necks and greenies against each other. A lot of profit in dividing.

Meanwhile everything else like privacy legislation goes through government while everyone is arguing with their backs turned.

Like now

3 days since the story broke and not a single thing in the press??? Anyone seen anything???

[avgas]

Sport and Religion.

[Pixie]

tbh if the man made climate change thing was a conspiracy i wouldnt be overly bothered, what are the results? get people to stop polluting, use what fuel we have left in a more efficient manner.

dont get me wrong, i dont think the end should justify the means but in this case its more of a white lie situation.

And allow governments to make a fuck load of money from carbon taxes and UN research grants

[MisterD]

I guess you don't know any scientists.

Not since I left university with an incredibly dim view of the people that spend their lives in those institutions...

They don't deal in conspiracies. Indeed they don't accept each others findings until it can be duplicated. Furthermore there are thousands of scientists involved in oceanographic and atmospheric research. It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it.

As for the money conspiracy: follow the money. Who has the greatest interest in stopping carbon trading? Answer - the massive oil companies. Its the last thing they want and they have plenty of money to oppose it.

I'm not subscribing any conspiracy to the scientists, but it's a basic fact that the money from governments for the pro-AGW research is an ocean to the drop that the oil companies have put in...AGW gets disproven and they're out of a job - human nature innit.

[Pixie]

This is the whole point. Maybe client change is real, maybe it's not, but the fact still remains that people are making money off us and doing nothing about it other than producing more studies, studies paid for by tax payers...

Client change is real.Every hooker knows that after a while a client will go looking for a different hooker.

[Jantar]

..... It would be simply impossible to falsify and publish without somebody screaming about it. ......

And that is exactly what is happening. Scientists have been screaming for years now about false data, incorrect methods, changed final reports etc. Mike Mann has already been vilified for his hockey stick fiasco, and both NASA and CRU have been shown up in the past for changing raw data to suit their claims. Now these leaked emails have confirmed that that very scenario is endemic in the AGW camp.

Somebody is screaming about it, but many people (particularly politicians) just don't want to listen.

[Mr Merde]

....
Somebody is screaming about it, but many people (particularly politicians) just don't want to listen.

Because to listen means the possible removal of another method of taking our hard earned cash off of us, thereby diminishing their own perceived levels of self importance.

[mashman]

Client change is real.Every hooker knows that after a while a client will go looking for a different hooker.

I'm not saying climate change isn't real, moreover a natural process. I'm not saying that global warming isn't real, moreover not even the scientific community can say with their hand on heart that the global warming exists... they know there was a spike between 1992 - 2000...

Extract from emails:

From: Kevin Trenberth (Very high up, just google him)
To: The scientific community
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37

Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a
record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

From: Stephen H Schneider
To: Other scientists
Date: Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM

Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,

From: Narasimha D. Rao
To: Stephen H Schneider
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM

You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are other skeptics' views.
[5]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
[6]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100013173/the-bbcs-amazing-u-turn-on-cl imate-change/

BBC has significant influence on public opinion outside the US.
Do you think this merits an op-ed response in the BBC from a scientist?

[mashman]

Because to listen means the possible removal of another method of taking our hard earned cash off of us, thereby diminishing their own perceived levels of self importance.

That's the tip of the iceberg... IF Global Warming has been a revenue gathering populace control mechanism, you can bet your ass that it's not the only one!!!