|
otolith
19,757 posts
74 months
|
BJWoods said: Anyone want to lay bets on how many days before the bbc start reporting it..? Anyone want to lay bets that when they do their spin will be "beastly right wing American oil lackeys try to sabotage leading climate researchers"?
|
|
|
BJWoods
4,263 posts
154 months
|
America Has it
THE REAL scientific community has it...
I'm just going to sit back and watch now.
B
|
|
|
chris watton
12,449 posts
130 months
|
And another..... "Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/..."Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would. ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme. The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme. Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position. The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots. Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve. For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news. Where they lead, the rest of the world’s politicians will eventually be forced to follow: their appalled electorates will make sure of it."
|
|
|
JohnnyPanic
1,282 posts
79 months
|
BJWoods said: Doesn't matter CONGRESS has got their teeth into the code and data and emails. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100...This has got legs now Anyone want to lay bets on how many days before the bbc start reporting it..? I'm saying Monday. as I bet there are going to be some spreads in the sunday papers, maybe the telegrap or mail. B Right then, I'm going to collect a number of links to send to the BBC to ask why there's no mention of this news story on their site. This is definitely one of them. I know I should have saved the links as I've gone through, but there have been so many! What do you guys think are the best links showing the story and news coverage to shame the BBC into action?
|
|
|
BJWoods
4,263 posts
154 months
|
of course search the bbc website for:
climate gate
climate scandal
NOTHING
This is truly shocking
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
sa_20v
3,560 posts
101 months
|
Anyone want to short some carbon... 
|
|
|
BJWoods
4,263 posts
154 months
|
JohnnyPanic said: BJWoods said: Doesn't matter CONGRESS has got their teeth into the code and data and emails. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100...This has got legs now Anyone want to lay bets on how many days before the bbc start reporting it..? I'm saying Monday. as I bet there are going to be some spreads in the sunday papers, maybe the telegrap or mail. B Right then, I'm going to collect a number of links to send to the BBC to ask why there's no mention of this news story on their site. This is definitely one of them. I know I should have saved the links as I've gone through, but there have been so many! What do you guys think are the best links showing the story and news coverage to shame the BBC into action? don't bother, many allready have... send it to you mp, or someother
|
|
|
Einion Yrth
10,440 posts
114 months
|
JohnnyPanic said: shame the BBC into action? Good luck with that.
|
|
|
BJWoods
4,263 posts
154 months
|
|
|
FunkyGibbon
2,830 posts
134 months
|
|
|
turbobloke
Original Poster
55,678 posts
130 months
|
|
|
Jasandjules
45,852 posts
99 months
|
ludo said: I disagree, if people are arguing that the AR4 report is somehow in doubt because of what is revealed in the leaked material If you would read the e-mails (or captions therein) you would see that the IPCC is discredited totally for a number of reasons. Indeed, AR4 is also no longer viable in light of disclosures contained within those leaked e-mails and the ramifications of the same, which course you are unaware of as a result of your ethical position. Therefore, even with regard to the IPCC and/or AR4 there is no reason for you to continue in this thread because as you state they are in doubt as to what is revealed within the leaked material which as you have not read them you are in no position to repudiate.
|
|
|
Guam
15,562 posts
138 months
|
A Little Background Filler I had heard stuff about this guy (rumblings from associates in the US) he is Obamas Climate Guru so what he believes is important to the debate in General, slightly OT (Mea Culpa) but may have a bearing on Obamas response to Climategate and such  http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198Be AFRAID be very AFRAID!
|
|
|
Spokey
2,246 posts
79 months
|
ludo said: wsurfa said: I'll take that as a yes then. Unless you want to produce the data go read this, and find out what the scientific argument actually is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati...I'd be happy to discuss it with you, after you have done the basic groundwork to find out what it is you are actually sceptical of. You're basically saying that we have to use AR4 to prove that AR4 is valid. You'll forgive me if I say that I don't find that a compelling logical argument.
|
|
|
turbobloke
Original Poster
55,678 posts
130 months
|
Guam said: A Little Background Filler I had heard stuff about this guy (rumblings from associates in the US) he is Obamas Climate Guru so what he believes is important to the debate in General, slightly OT (Mea Culpa) but may have a bearing on Obamas response to Climategate and such http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198Good start: When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn’t just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.Earlier you showed that Obama's environment page had been removed (content) from the internet so out of interest how do these two developments sit ogether according to those US associates?
|
|
|
Guam
15,562 posts
138 months
|
IL_JDM said: Nice one we need to hunt this stuff down from all these guys and archive it before it dissappears so they cant say we never said we "BELIEVED" all this 
|
|
|
turbobloke
Original Poster
55,678 posts
130 months
|
Spokey said: ludo said: wsurfa said: I'll take that as a yes then. Unless you want to produce the data go read this, and find out what the scientific argument actually is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati...I'd be happy to discuss it with you, after you have done the basic groundwork to find out what it is you are actually sceptical of. You're basically saying that we have to use AR4 to prove that AR4 is valid. You'll forgive me if I say that I don't find that a compelling logical argument. Not to mention we're talking - by evidence from the horse's mouth so to speak - about mister multigaffe aka mister casino stats here. Relevant as there is an implicit appeal to self-authority in the ludocrous 'happy to discuss it with you' comment from such a source. Information pollution - don;t inhale and don't swallow it. What a hoot 
|
|
|
Guam
15,562 posts
138 months
|
turbobloke said: Guam said: A Little Background Filler I had heard stuff about this guy (rumblings from associates in the US) he is Obamas Climate Guru so what he believes is important to the debate in General, slightly OT (Mea Culpa) but may have a bearing on Obamas response to Climategate and such http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198Good start: When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the president-elect stated "promoting science isn’t just about providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.Earlier you showed that Obama's environment page had been removed (content) from the internet so out of interest how do these two developments sit ogether according to those US associates? They are according to them "pissed" at the way in whic people are trying to defend this behaviour from the UAE, they are of course well used to Spin in the US and in general they know the smell of "manure" when they whiff it in the Air. Holdren though is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there Forced abortions, sterility drugs in the water supply and much much more, this guy remember is Obama's go to guy on this stuff Scary Scary guy!
|
|
|
turbobloke
Original Poster
55,678 posts
130 months
|
IL_JDM said: Ask kerplunk apparently he was 'copied in' on the very same messages too 
|
|
|
otolith
19,757 posts
74 months
|
FunkyGibbon said: No surprise in the editorial direction there. Their "Better World" series of articles nailed New Scientist's political centre of gravity to the map.
|
|
