Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations
Discussion
freecar said:
Worst thing about it was feeling solidarity for a mail journalist, made me feel dirty inside!
Well you ought to stop being so bloody silly, then.Melanie Philips is, and always has been, on side over this. She's taken flack on QT about it before.
The Mail also backs motorists against the State.
Why we get constant moaning on here beats me. We're sufficiently intelligent to ignore the stuff they have to write to maintain sales, aren't we?
mybrainhurts said:
freecar said:
Worst thing about it was feeling solidarity for a mail journalist, made me feel dirty inside!
Well you ought to stop being so bloody silly, then.Melanie Philips is, and always has been, on side over this. She's taken flack on QT about it before.
The Mail also backs motorists against the State.
Why we get constant moaning on here beats me. We're sufficiently intelligent to ignore the stuff they have to write to maintain sales, aren't we?
On a lighter note has anyone posted this yet?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQMs1xm7jGw
TankRizzo said:
YOU IDIOT WOMAN, THE FLOODING IS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING
JESUS
Most people watching will know that too, so that was a bit of an own goal for the propaganda machine.JESUS
Having said that, the BBC have given the Cockermouth floods prime time coverage everyday since it happened, in a clever almost subliminal bombardment of propaganda, with the obvious goal of scaring people into thinking exactly what that silly women blurted on QT. Subliminal propaganda when combined with the "Act On CO2" bombardment, will take it's toll on the weak of mind for sure.
Heres a little BBC link worth clicking...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_features/2002/lynm...
Article said:
The worst post-war flooding disaster in Britain took place in the North Devon village of Lynmouth in 1952, in a tragedy which claimed 34 lives.
The flooding occurred on 15 August 1952, after nine inches of rain fell in the space of 24 hours.
The downpour caused a wall of water to surge down from Exmoor onto Lynmouth. The East and West Lyn rivers, which drop down from Exmoor, were swollen even before the storm.
Of course, if we all drive 5 miles less a week, the chances of such heavy rainfall in the future will be greatly diminished The flooding occurred on 15 August 1952, after nine inches of rain fell in the space of 24 hours.
The downpour caused a wall of water to surge down from Exmoor onto Lynmouth. The East and West Lyn rivers, which drop down from Exmoor, were swollen even before the storm.
If this has already been said in this fast moving thread I apologise, but you know this thing to my mind has many characteristics aligned with the UK MP expenses malarkey.
A small group of people acting in a particular way that they, in their little world, thought was right and for the best of all.
When questioned about it played the superiority card, " Ah you wouldn't understand, bless!" : pat on head:
When questioned a bit harder started trying to discredit the questioner, ie the fees offices bods moved / fired etc.
When really under fire try to hide and redact information.
And when the wheels finally start to come off and things emerge that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see "Doesn't seem quite right and needs looking at independently." start protesting loudly "But it was all within the rules."
Then when they realise they've finally been caught with hands in cookie jar come over all penitent and ask for forgiveness. (MPs aren't really there yet tbh, they like to make out they are but in reality they are not.
Now I'm waiting for that moment, when all the little guesses and adjustments to the bits of data for individual little reasons that went up to make the one big guess that is AGW theory are claimed to have been "within the rules."
Or is it just me and I am way off plot?
A small group of people acting in a particular way that they, in their little world, thought was right and for the best of all.
When questioned about it played the superiority card, " Ah you wouldn't understand, bless!" : pat on head:
When questioned a bit harder started trying to discredit the questioner, ie the fees offices bods moved / fired etc.
When really under fire try to hide and redact information.
And when the wheels finally start to come off and things emerge that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see "Doesn't seem quite right and needs looking at independently." start protesting loudly "But it was all within the rules."
Then when they realise they've finally been caught with hands in cookie jar come over all penitent and ask for forgiveness. (MPs aren't really there yet tbh, they like to make out they are but in reality they are not.
Now I'm waiting for that moment, when all the little guesses and adjustments to the bits of data for individual little reasons that went up to make the one big guess that is AGW theory are claimed to have been "within the rules."
Or is it just me and I am way off plot?
From ICECAP with my emphasis.
If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”
They never have.
What “climategate” suggests is many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.
Now they and their media shills—who sneered that all who questioned their phony “consensus” were despicable “deniers,” the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust—are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.
So they desperately try to portray it as the routine “messy” business of science, lamely insisting, “nothing to see here folks, move along.”
Before the Internet—which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called “wise elites”—they might have gotten away with it.
But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore.
If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give a s*** about “the science.”
They never have.
What “climategate” suggests is many of the world’s leading climate scientists didn’t either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve.
Now they and their media shills—who sneered that all who questioned their phony “consensus” were despicable “deniers,” the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust—are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.
So they desperately try to portray it as the routine “messy” business of science, lamely insisting, “nothing to see here folks, move along.”
Before the Internet—which has given ordinary people a way to fight back against the received wisdom of so-called “wise elites”—they might have gotten away with it.
But not now, as knowledgeable climate bloggers are advancing the story and forcing the co-opted mainstream media to cover a scandal most would rather ignore.
I remember a Corbyn interview on here recently: this from the political blog Climate Depot
UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”
“The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed,” Corbyn said in a contentious on air television exchange with an environmental activist with Russia's WWF. The live TV debate with Corbyn appeared on Moscow's RT TV on November 25, 2009. The RT TV's segment was titled “Heating Cheating.” See Full Video of Debate here.
“The world is cooling and has been cooling for 7 years and the leading scientists, so-called 'scientists' have been trying to hide that evidence,” Corbyn said in reference to hacked emails showing top UN IPCC scientists apparently conspiring to manipulate temperature data and exclude scientific studies from peer-review that they did not agree with.
“We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now,” Corbyn said.
“The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn told host Bill Dod and Aleksey Kokorin, the Climate Program Coordinator for WWF in Russia.
The upcoming UN global warming summit in Copenhagen is a "complete waste of time,” according to Corbyn.
'A scandal'
“The Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped,” he added. “There is a gigantic bandwagon run by governments who want to control world energy supplies and hold back development in the third world. This thing they are doing now is just the same as they are doing in the banking crisis, it is creating a whole bubble of false values,” Corbyn explained.
Corbyn said the ClimateGate revelations further revealed that man-made climate fears are not scientifically valid.
“Their claims are false, I repeat, they are false, and this theory they've got is like the titanic and it will crash. I would suggest that honest green campaigners who want to preserve biodiversity should get off this [man-made global warming] bandwagon before it sinks,” Corbyn explained. "Carbon dioxide levels are driven by temps, not the other way around. There have been big peaks in CO2 in past...carbon dioxide is actually a good thing for the world," Corbyn explained. "More CO2 makes plants and animals more efficient," he added.
UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, of the long range solar forecast group Weather Action, declared that the ClimateGate revelations have rendered man-made global warming fears “false.”
“The case is blown to smithereens and this whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and Copenhagen conference should be closed,” Corbyn said in a contentious on air television exchange with an environmental activist with Russia's WWF. The live TV debate with Corbyn appeared on Moscow's RT TV on November 25, 2009. The RT TV's segment was titled “Heating Cheating.” See Full Video of Debate here.
“The world is cooling and has been cooling for 7 years and the leading scientists, so-called 'scientists' have been trying to hide that evidence,” Corbyn said in reference to hacked emails showing top UN IPCC scientists apparently conspiring to manipulate temperature data and exclude scientific studies from peer-review that they did not agree with.
“We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now,” Corbyn said.
“The data, real data, over the last one thousand, ten thousand or million years, shows there is no relationship between carbon dioxide and world temperatures or climate extremes. Now we can see that actually the people in charge of data have been fiddling it, and they have been hiding the real decline in world temperatures in an attempt to keep their so called moral high ground,” Corbyn told host Bill Dod and Aleksey Kokorin, the Climate Program Coordinator for WWF in Russia.
The upcoming UN global warming summit in Copenhagen is a "complete waste of time,” according to Corbyn.
'A scandal'
“The Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped,” he added. “There is a gigantic bandwagon run by governments who want to control world energy supplies and hold back development in the third world. This thing they are doing now is just the same as they are doing in the banking crisis, it is creating a whole bubble of false values,” Corbyn explained.
Corbyn said the ClimateGate revelations further revealed that man-made climate fears are not scientifically valid.
“Their claims are false, I repeat, they are false, and this theory they've got is like the titanic and it will crash. I would suggest that honest green campaigners who want to preserve biodiversity should get off this [man-made global warming] bandwagon before it sinks,” Corbyn explained. "Carbon dioxide levels are driven by temps, not the other way around. There have been big peaks in CO2 in past...carbon dioxide is actually a good thing for the world," Corbyn explained. "More CO2 makes plants and animals more efficient," he added.
US is definitely moving quicker on this than the UK
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
s.m.h. said:
US is definitely moving quicker on this than the UK
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Indeed. My piss began to boil when she started harping on about the Cockermouth floods being down to MMGW.http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Stupid b
h.Also I can only assume that most of the true believers were asleep in the Biology class when they were learning about plants.
Lets reduce the very thing that plants need to produce oxygen.
in nice simple terms for those that were on QT last night...
Lets reduce the very thing that plants need to produce oxygen.
in nice simple terms for those that were on QT last night...
Edited by s.m.h. on Friday 27th November 07:13
Looks like The science museum vote didn't get the desired result,
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
s.m.h. said:
US is definitely moving quicker on this than the UK
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Yes, the comment was crass.http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Did the melting ice have a label on it explaining the cause? Did it speak?
These lightweights are either too ignorant scientifically to understand causality or too indoctrinated / willingly propagandised to care.
turbobloke said:
s.m.h. said:
US is definitely moving quicker on this than the UK
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Yes, the comment was crass.http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-gl...
The BBC is doing itself no favours in its biased reporting.
I can see a backlash with the licence coming on here. Impartial? My arse. Last night Brigscock showed himself as "on the AGW bandwagon". "Ive seen the ice is melting" Funny that. I get it on my car sometimes but some days I wear shorts.... Dont you love the way they make these quotes but theres no-one to return the fire? I wanted to shout at the woman talking about the floods, but missus was asleep!
Did the melting ice have a label on it explaining the cause? Did it speak?
These lightweights are either too ignorant scientifically to understand causality or too indoctrinated / willingly propagandised to care.
Flying celebs and journo's out to 'live' the truth - quite canny marketing really
Well, it hit CNN this morning on the 6am (5am UK time) news bulletin. Fairly well balanced piece, on for a few minutes with quotes from the e-mails and a sound-bite from the senator who's raising it in the US.
The main laugh was some stupid woman being interviewed in a shopping mall saying the 'polar bears were in trouble.'.....
The main laugh was some stupid woman being interviewed in a shopping mall saying the 'polar bears were in trouble.'.....
I get fed up with the whole Im a recognised actor/comedian/etc see me somewhere hot/cold/dangerous.
I couldnt give a st if Brigscock went there with researchers. What were they there for? No doubt to confirm that there was ice melting - which they probably knew as it always does, only to begin reforming once theyre back in their A/C controlled offices.
The Bellamy video shows a good comparison of tree growth in varying CO2 conditions.
Considering most of these idiot performers cry over the decline of rain forests, you'd have thought any help in replacing them would be good eh..... But hell, why get in the way of making money.
I couldnt give a s
t if Brigscock went there with researchers. What were they there for? No doubt to confirm that there was ice melting - which they probably knew as it always does, only to begin reforming once theyre back in their A/C controlled offices. The Bellamy video shows a good comparison of tree growth in varying CO2 conditions.
Considering most of these idiot performers cry over the decline of rain forests, you'd have thought any help in replacing them would be good eh..... But hell, why get in the way of making money.
Interesting snippet from another US site about China
Beforeitsnews said:
At the same time, Bloomberg has reported that the Chinese have also pledged to set numerical targets for greenhouse gas emissions through 2020.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
s.m.h. said:
Interesting snippet from another US site about China
Yes, wasn't the announcement that China will reduce 'carbon intensity' by 40 to 45% by 2020 - that means China's emissions will still rise. Beforeitsnews said:
At the same time, Bloomberg has reported that the Chinese have also pledged to set numerical targets for greenhouse gas emissions through 2020.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
China’s cabinet yesterday said it will cut output of carbon dioxide per unit of gross domestic product by between 40 percent and 45 percent from 2005. A day earlier, the U.S. said it will propose a direct CO2 reduction in the same period of about 17 percent, provided that lines up with a new domestic climate law.
Cutting output of CO2 per unit of GDP for the Chinese means they will not be required to cut any outputs, as long as their economy grows near the current rate of 8% for the next ten years, their output could actually increase. This is a very nice way to say "no thanks", while still agreeing with your host. The only way to make the numbers work will be to ship even more jobs over to China, who will still be able to increase their CO2 output and their economy, while countries like the U.S. will have to shut down entire swaths of its economy to comply.
If the UK ceased to exist or if the economy was reduced to zero, mere growth in the Chinese economy would offset the puny reduction in global emisssions resulting from the UK's demise in about 2 years.
If every UK licence holder drove 5 miles less each week for a year, growth in the Chinese economy would make up the puny emissions deficit in about 15 minutes.
Drive 5 miles less - together we can make a difference
Brigstocke = utter . what has happened to him? He used to be funny, now he is just a right on political commentator.
Davis's most perspicacious comment for me was along the lines of if Government believes that more extreme weather events are going to become the norm, then why the fucque aren't more resources being directed at flood defences? Why is it that policy is actually directed at allowing the entire English drainage network, built up and maintained over millennia, to block solid? It smacks of moral bankruptcy to me.
As for the Portillo cock - loving Abbott on the Andrew Neil show, how is it possible for an otherwise intelligent woman to come out with the same comment as that uttered by an utter pleb on QT earlier : "but, but how can you say that Michael, just look at the floods in Cockermouth..." credit to Portillo though. He did a double faceplant with despair at the utter fatuity of the comment, and was virtually lost for words so shocked was he by Abbott's stupidity. He'll be having words later I'm sure back at their pied-à-terre.
Its going to take time, (and a shed load more faceplanting) to overcome the inertia caused by this level of mass brainwashing.
. what has happened to him? He used to be funny, now he is just a right on political commentator.Davis's most perspicacious comment for me was along the lines of if Government believes that more extreme weather events are going to become the norm, then why the fucque aren't more resources being directed at flood defences? Why is it that policy is actually directed at allowing the entire English drainage network, built up and maintained over millennia, to block solid? It smacks of moral bankruptcy to me.
As for the Portillo cock - loving Abbott on the Andrew Neil show, how is it possible for an otherwise intelligent woman to come out with the same comment as that uttered by an utter pleb on QT earlier : "but, but how can you say that Michael, just look at the floods in Cockermouth..." credit to Portillo though. He did a double faceplant with despair at the utter fatuity of the comment, and was virtually lost for words so shocked was he by Abbott's stupidity. He'll be having words later I'm sure back at their pied-à-terre.
Its going to take time, (and a shed load more faceplanting) to overcome the inertia caused by this level of mass brainwashing.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff