CAG Products - We think that these will help you to make your claim or Reclaim your Right These sales help to ensure this site will remain free to use!
Just seen this on another website and I think the more who rebut this scam the better !!
The British Museum seems to have jumped on the "climate change bandwagon
The British Museum is holding a poll about climate change called "Prove It". They are asking people to be counted in or counted out to the proposition:
Quote:
"I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."
The poll has been going for about two days and there is a running total on the website of the result. I don't think it is going as intended since the current score at 17.10 BST on 24 October is 423 counted in against 2545 counted out. The poll has been fairly steady all day at between 5:1 and 6:1 counted out to counted in. This cannot be the desired result! The website does ask viewers to spread the word so here is the website address: Science Museum - Home - PROVE IT! http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&...%2Fprove it.aspx
What on earth the Science Museum is doing involving itself in this tawdry PR stunt, goodness only knows. How they try and dig themselves out of their hole when they achieve the unintended result is going to be delicious to see.
I suggest we all take part in the poll and count ourselves out of this hysteria before we are taxed off the roads and out of our cars !!
Why do you think that it is a scam? Do you think it inconceivable that human activity can change the climate of the earth? For myself I have no idea if climate change is following a natural cycle. If scientists cannot agree then I have no idea how the rest of us are supposed to form a conclusion. I am interested to know what convinces you that it is all hysteria apart from having to pay more tax.
this world runs in cycles, hence we have had ice ages and warm spells, yes human intervention will tip it slightly but all this mass hysteria about global warming is just that hysteria whipped up by governments and media.
Platinum Account Holder Help the CAG!! Make a donation Cagger since
Sep 2006
I am in a jacuzzi with Bananarama. I have not lived in Bolton since 1986
Posts 6,811
Re: Fight the great Climate Change scam
Yes the climate appears to be warming up.
In order to objectively show that this is due to human industrial emissions or an increase in solar output, one could compare and contrast recent ground level temperature increases on Earth to that of the closest broadly comparable planet with an atmosphere and weather systems-
Mars is also warming up. Its polar ice caps are shrinking and there is evidence of liquid water where none existed before.
It has a thin atmosphere of CO2 and oxygen and daytime summer temperature in the equatorial regions of up to +10 degrees C.
Until recently (1980s) its maximum temperature was 0 degrees C.
There is no known industry or active volcanos on Mars. The only source of energy that Mars has, is the one its shares with the Earth- the Sun.
When solar output increases, Mars warms up.
Mars is warming up and so is the Earth.
(They keep that corrolation quiet, dont they?)
We cant alter a climate which is driven by the Sun, but what we can do is adapt to it.
Which is what we should be doing.
Changing to energy saving light bulbs will not reverse climate change, though your electric bills will be lower if you do.
Paying more in tax will not reverse climate change either, it will however reduce the monetary resources available to enable people to physically adapt to climate change.
Last edited by noomill060; 8th November 2009 at 00:35.
CCA s.78(1) request fee: £1
Court issue fee: £70
Discovering your credit agreement is unenforceable:
Its a scam..read up about east anglia uni trying to hide the facts.....its a backdoor way of taking lots of money out of your pocket by the use of guillt...search the truth
I'm interested to know if this is your personal experience or from media reports?
Here is a graph from the Met Office Hadley Centre showing global average temperatures from 1998 to 2009:
This clearly shows a general cooling trend until this year with 1998 being considerably warmer than todays temperature.
Originally Posted by noomill060
In order to objectively show that this is due to human industrial emissions or an increase in solar output, one could compare and contrast recent ground level temperature increases on Earth to that of the closest broadly comparable planet with an atmosphere and weather systems-
Mars is also warming up. Its polar ice caps are shrinking and there is evidence of liquid water where none existed before.
It has a thin atmosphere of CO2 and oxygen and daytime summer temperature in the equatorial regions of up to +10 degrees C.
Until recently (1980s) its maximum temperature was 0 degrees C.
There is no known industry or active volcanos on Mars. The only source of energy that Mars has, is the one its shares with the Earth- the Sun.
When solar output increases, Mars warms up.
Mars is warming up and so is the Earth.
(They keep that corrolation quiet, dont they?)
We cant alter a climate which is driven by the Sun, but what we can do is adapt to it.
Which is what we should be doing.
I think you draw a very good analogy here and state the obvious, however I don't believe that the Sun is the only source of energy - what about cosmic radiation from our galaxy from stars exploding. Scientist & astronomers acknowledge that these events eject colossal amounts of radiation energy, so much so that they knock out satellites from time to time (in addition to mass ejections from our Sun). If one exploded too close to earth it would conceivably wipe out all life (except cockroaches of course - lol)
Such an event could explain the sudden increase in temperature we see today (see graph above) seeing as the Sun is currently unusually quiet in terms of expected solar activity.
Originally Posted by noomill060
Changing to energy saving light bulbs will not reverse climate change, though your electric bills will be lower if you do.
And of course you can pollute the environment with the mercury they contain when you dispose of them - lol
Originally Posted by noomill060
Paying more in tax will not reverse climate change either, it will however reduce the monetary resources available to enable people to physically adapt to climate change.
Absolutely agree - shameful
Now, the current indoctrination by governments is that CO2 is the cause of global rising temperatures and that the increase is due to human activity, therefore they have a reason to 'control' CO2 emissions and tax us all for the privilege!
Well, I for one want to know if it is true that CO2 is the cause of global temperature rise and that the increase of CO2 we see today in the atmosphere is in fact due to human activity - if it is to affect the money in my pocket!? :?
So, I've been doing a little research on the subject and have become VERY sceptical indeed as to if this is being driven by nothing more than money and power and based on no credible scientific evidence at all!
First a few facts on 'greenhouse gasses': Greenhouse gasses are NOT bad for the planet for without them the Earth would be frozen solid. Water-vapour is also a greenhouse gas which makes up 95% of the atmosphere - leaving just 5% for the others including CO2! Methane is the most active in terms of greenhouse effect, followed by CO2, but with water-vapour being so dominant, this would still have the greatest effect!
"The theory of global warming assumes CO2 is an atmospheric gas and as it increases, the temperature also rises. It then theorised that since humans were producing more CO2 than ever before, the temperature would rise inevitably." :? (no conclusive proof, just assumption & theory!)
It is science fact that oceans contribute by-far the most CO2 into the atmosphere, some 115 gigatons per year, whilst human activity today produces approximately 30 gigatons.
And we now know that the increases in CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact a consequence of the planet warming, not the cause and increased measured levels in CO2 lag that of temperature rise. - Temperature measurements over the last decade have shown a general cooling yet CO2 levels continue to rise as would be expected with the 'lag' effect.
I can't help but think that the Copenhagen 2009 Treaty or 'carbon trading', is nothing more than a scam to make money, legitimising the ability to emit as much CO2 as one wishes as long as you pay for it - it does nothing to actually reduce emission or kerb real pollution (chemicals).
Here is a little article I found that explains simply how it works:
These nations can make millions selling carbon credits, while enjoying a comfortable cushion to pump the gas into the atmosphere without worrying about energy efficiency or cleaning up their factories.
We now have "Climategate" - the e-mails stolen from East Anglia’s CRU suggesting that the climate data was manipulated in favour of our politicians (I wonder how many of you have even heard or are even aware of it? - it's worth googling if you don't know.
Climategate, is a BIG news story, possibly exposing the biggest fraud ever! - yet the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) have so far ignored the story.
But the Telegraph have with headlines:
"Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws"
Yet immediately after "Climategate" was exposed we get this from our Government: "Climate science statement from the Met Office, NERC and the Royal Society" (dated 24/11/2009)
The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. Crucial decisions will be taken soon in Copenhagen about limiting and reducing the impacts of climate change now and in the future. Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As three of the UK's leading scientific organisations involving most of the UK scientists working on climate change, we cannot emphasise enough the body of scientific evidence that underpins the call for action now, and we reinforce our commitment to ensuring that world leaders continue to have access to the best possible science. We believe this will be essential to inform sound decision-making on policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change up to Copenhagen and beyond.
And yet on the same day we have this announcement from America: "Senate Committee Launches "Climategate" Investigation"
Sen. James M. Inhofe a Senior Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific "consensus" of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit.
"The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated," Sen. Inhofe said. "Moreover, it appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated.
"I certainly don't condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus' of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world's leading climate scientists."
Kinda contradicts what the Met Office just said - lol
To demonstrate the reporting confusion and inconstancy from the BBC they report on 24/11/09:
"This year will be one of the top five warmest years globally since records began 150 years ago, according to figures compiled by the Met Office."
Code:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm
Yet less than two months ago 09/10/09 the BBC reported:
"What happened to global warming?"
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
Code:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm
Furthermore, today it's announced that
"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based"
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
Surely now the original data is gone, the numbers derived from it are meaningless, how can they now be properly validated?
How convenient! - Is the 'Inconvenient Truth' all based on a convenient lie based on massaged data to simply support the wishes of politicians?
I then ask why would there appear to be this 'cover-up'....?
Well, the answer may lye in these videos:
Copenhagen Treaty Must Be Stopped
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHM5PLq9KXo
Is Global Warming Man-Made?? (Part1/2)
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmiZJwYdxy8&NR=1
Is Global Warming Man-Made?? (Part2/2)
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RjdZcoEtEE&NR=1
You make you own mind up
Last edited by WebFerret; 30th November 2009 at 01:51.
What is really worrying about this is the apparant extent to which scientists at the University of East Anglia were prepared to go to manipulate their data and their reports to make the strongest case for man-made global warming.
Most people don't believe politicians but there is a tendency to accept 'expert' opinion. These two examples suggest that there is something fishy going on here. When this is coupled with the increasing tendency of man made global warming advocates to question the right of sceptics to even make their point, then I really do begin to have my doubts.
Call me a cynic but we seem to have a heady mixture of scientists looking for research grants and politicians looking for reasons to impose additional controls and extra taxes at the same time as denying access to data and shouting down those who try to raise doubts.
What is really worrying about this is the apparant extent to which scientists at the University of East Anglia were prepared to go to manipulate their data and their reports to make the strongest case for man-made global warming.
Most people don't believe politicians but there is a tendency to accept 'expert' opinion. These two examples suggest that there is something fishy going on here. When this is coupled with the increasing tendency of man made global warming advocates to question the right of sceptics to even make their point, then I really do begin to have my doubts.
Call me a cynic but we seem to have a heady mixture of scientists looking for research grants and politicians looking for reasons to impose additional controls and extra taxes at the same time as denying access to data and shouting down those who try to raise doubts.
Couldn't agree more.
With regard to the 'data loss' (said to have shown recorded temperatures going back some 150 years) - I luv one of the comments from your link:
Hmmm…I can see a scenario playing out here:
“You’ve deleted the data, but I have a copy from when it was up, and it doesn’t support your conclusions, there are errors.”
“You don’t have the real, complete data, we have the complete data and it supports our conclusions.”
“Show me the complete data then if mine is erroneous.”
“We can’t show you the data, it’s secret, we have confidentiality agreements, showing it to you would destroy Science.”
“I’ll file a FOI request.”
“Oops, we deleted the data completely! Our bad.”
And that got me thinking:
Recorded raw data of the earth and heavens has been protected like Solomon's gold. The astrological (astronomical) records of the ancient Sumerians were used over and over again by later figures like Ptolemy, even up to Copernicus and others, as the beginning points of their work.
They copied those records with great care and they didn't just 'toss' the originals away.
Therefore, for the researchers at Hadley CRU to say they threw the raw data records away to save space is simply unbelievable, incredible, mind-numbing and quite frankly IMO criminal. They claim that the raw data exhibited variations caused by local fluctuations, unreliable recording mechanisms, "urban heat," etc., and thus had to be "augmented" or "modified" or "processed." To say that the "augmented" data is still available is no comfort, because without the original readings, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the adjustments they did.
The BBC still view this 'story' as one about hackers stealing e-mails, when the REAL story is a VERY BIG political hot potato!
Either climate change is being brought about by human activity or it is not. I have no idea of the truth of the matter. What I do know is that:
1. The truth cannot be established by opinion polls.
2. The fact that some scientists may have falsified evidence has no bearing on the truth.
3. We need to look carefully at the lobbyists on either side and ask whether they have a vested interest.
4. It is natural that people should allow their view to be influenced by their own lifestyle, not to mention the threat of that lifestyle being taxed. They need to stand back and think.
5. The fact that climate change has happened before does not mean that any current climate change is not due to human activity.
6. Whether it affects climate change or not, polluting the atmosphere cannot be for the good. We should carry on as if we were all going to live for ever.
Platinum Account Holder Help the CAG!! Make a donation Cagger since
Sep 2006
I am in a jacuzzi with Bananarama. I have not lived in Bolton since 1986
Posts 6,811
Re: Fight the great Climate Change scam
I notice that the Media are now starting to refer to a "leak" from the University of East Anglia rather than a "hacking"
One thing among many that AGW enthusiasts have not addressed convincingly (if at all) is the fact that ALL planets in the inner Solar System are warming proportionately identically as Earth is.
The one thing that we have absolutely no control over.
Either climate change is being brought about by human activity or it is not. I have no idea of the truth of the matter. What I do know is that:
1. The truth cannot be established by opinion polls.
2. The fact that some scientists may have falsified evidence has no bearing on the truth.
3. We need to look carefully at the lobbyists on either side and ask whether they have a vested interest.
4. It is natural that people should allow their view to be influenced by their own lifestyle, not to mention the threat of that lifestyle being taxed. They need to stand back and think.
5. The fact that climate change has happened before does not mean that any current climate change is not due to human activity.
6. Whether it affects climate change or not, polluting the atmosphere cannot be for the good. We should carry on as if we were all going to live for ever.
There are three issues here:
1) Is the climate generally warming- I don't think there is completely reliable evidence that it is and there is an indication that some of the evidence that it is is has been falsified by an organisation that was generally regarded as reliable.
2) Does humankind have an impact on climate change- The answer to this question has to be yes but it isn't clear how material this is.
3) If the climate is warming, what should be done about it? The answer has to be that we should do something consistent with stopping or slowing down the change in the climate without imposing undue burdens on society.
Personally I subscribe to the view that the climate is probably warming slightly and that humans have influenced this. I don't think it's clear the at the change is material or that we are the sole or primary cause. To me logic suggests that we need to address the effects rather than indulge in the orgy of regulation and higher taxes being proposed by people who, funnily enough, think regulation and higher taxes are the answer to everything.
This global warming is the biggest tax scam going and they are meeting in Copehagen to decide how to tax us even more! There are numerous active volcanos around the world that we know of never mind the underseas ones that we do not know of and each one of these spews out more CO2 in one day than all the cars in the world in one day. What about shipping. How much CO2 does one ship spew out in one day in comparison to all the cars in Great Britain?
This just nature at work. Here is an update on the artilce posted by Seminole;
Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):
The internet is on fire this morning with confirmation computers at one of the world’s leading climate research centres were hacked, and the information released on the internet.
A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones.
In an exclusive interview with Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition, Jones confirms his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to have come from his organisation.
“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”
One of the most damning e-mails published comes from Dr. Jones himself. In an e-mail from almost exactly ten years ago, Jones appears to discuss a method of overlaying data of temperature declines with repetitive, false data of higher temperatures:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@
[snipped]
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped]
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
Jones told Investigate that he couldn’t remember the context of “hide the decline,” and that the process was a way to fill data gaps rather than mislead. But when scientists talk about “tricks” in the context of hiding data, it certainly seems suspicious.
Andrew Bolt points to a couple of other suspicious entries in the database as well for the Herald-Sun. For instance, here we have scientists discussing how to delete inconvenient data in order to emphasize other data that supports their conclusions:
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
Hmmm. Sounds like “hid[ing] the data” once again. And here we have them privately admitting that they can’t find the global warming that they’ve been predicting:
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer 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). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
*** The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***
Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.
Dr. Jones has confirmed that these e-mails are genuine. Whether the work represented by these scientists is as genuine seems to be under serious question. Tim Blair says, “The fun is officially underway.” Update: These e-mails may explain this:
Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.
At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth’s average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
Or maybe it didn’t exist at all, except when scientists at Hadley were “hid[ing] the decline[s].” Update II: This follows on a more mundane controversy over competence at Hadley that erupted in September:
A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.
At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.
Platinum Account Holder Help the CAG!! Make a donation Cagger since
Sep 2006
I am in a jacuzzi with Bananarama. I have not lived in Bolton since 1986
Posts 6,811
Re: Fight the great Climate Change scam
Adding to the suspicion, Queens University in Belfast is fighting numerous FoI requests from fellow scientists for raw data from the 7000 years of dendrochronological- tree ring- data which is claimed to support the Greenland ice core data for temperature changes since the end of the last ice age.
What possible reason could they have for refusing to share this vital (to the climate change debate) scientific data, with rest of humanity?
Maybe it isnt all that is claimed....?
If it is as stated, lets see it.
Come on QUB- what are you trying to hide?
Last edited by noomill060; 5th December 2009 at 20:35.
Fight the great Climate Change scam
Originally Posted by noomill060
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks