Hi all, this is the biggest news event of the century, but I couldn't see any coverage here? Basically, top government funded climate scientists have been twisting their data to falsify global warming. Their private data was hacked a couple of days ago, and is now all over the internet, such as the quotes below...

 

“I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=794).

 

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=419).

 

“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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=154).

 

“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.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1048).

 

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences.” (http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=544)

 

For further info, just google 'climategate' it's getting 100,000's of hits globally!

 

Main stream media and the biased BBC aren't saying anything yet, but this isn't going away. As things stand, "Act On CO2" is based on fraudulent data, and sinking fast!

I forgot I started this thread, but anyway I see there are a couple of True Believers here (the faith is strong) but the general opinion is pretty much the same as with the general public on the whole, in that 80% of us believe Man Made Global Warming Theory is nonsense (yes polls show circa 80% although the BBC propaganda machine may have you believe otherwise). As mentioned, the spin machine now calls global warming 'Climate Change' and obviously the planet cannot have anything but climate change - there is no such thing as 'climate constant'! Climate has and always will change, and it's certain that human influence on that change is so small as to be negligible.

 

I've spent many many hours reading lots of scientific reports, and like anyone with a logical mind would be, I am completely convinced that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a negligible affect on climate. The tide of independent (non government funded) scientific opinion has turned that way too, and I'm sure it won't be long now until the whole CO2 political scare story drops dead on it's feet.

 

Did you know that total global human CO2 accounts for just 0.0015% of the atmosphere, and that the UK's portion of global human CO2 is just 2% - so if the UK completely halted all fossil fuel burning over night we would reduce atmospheric CO2 by a whopping 0.00003%! Costly and completely pointless! Also, an important fact to remember is that there is NO PROVEN CAUSE AND EFFECT between global temperature data and anthropegenic carbon dioxide, and that carbon Dioxide IS NOT even close to being a pollutant! It's an essential trace gas that plants/trees/farming thrive on, and is actually quite diminished at the moment - just 0.0385 of our atmosphere. Historic levels have been much higher, naturally of course, and they will be again.

 

Don't get me started on the Polar Bear charade! Their numbers have been steadilly rising since the 1950's despite what the constant barrage of propaganda will have you believe.

 

Global ice is not melting either! Antarctica holds 90% of the planets ice at thicknesses over 1 mile deep, and average temperatures around minus 20c (down to minus 80). Ice is increasing at the rate of billions of tonnes per year. Even if it naturally warmed it would still be well below freezing!

 

Did anyone see the snowfall in the US last week? 877 new snowfall records! Closer to home, many European cities experienced near record breaking low temperatures. More to come due partly to solar activity.

 

Jeff was spot on earlier when he mentioned Solar activity - the driver of climate.

 

Basically for the last 2 years the Sun has been very quiet, sunspot activity has been at its lowest recorded level for more than 100 years. Solar cycle 23 was extra long (normally 11 years) with a long solar minimum, and cycle 24 is predicted to be weak. There's a high probability that we could be entering a period of climate similar to the Dalton minimum around 1800 (end of the little ice age period) when the sun was equally as quiet.

 

The Solar / Climate Relationship is like this... Lower Magnetic Field Strength = Fewer Sunspots = Less Solar Wind = More Galactic Cosmic Rays = More Low Level Cloud Formation = Increased Albedo/More Sunlight Reflected Into Space = Earth Becomes Colder.

 

Here's a very interesting link that really is worth spending 15 minutes to read.

 

http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

 

Archibald also talks about CO2 near the end of that article, which is worth reading too. There isn't anything new in what he says, but you may not have come across it before, and can of course check out many similar scientific papers available on the net.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Has anyone heard of Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn? He makes accurate long term weather forecasts by analysing solar activity and cosmic rays. He predicted the November floods a month in advance, and the recent record breaking snowfalls and low temperatures. He does this months in advance! Sounds incredible I know, but it proves the power of solar influence on our planet.

 

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact1&fsize=0

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

For a good source of information and interesting debates between scientists, take a look at the website below.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

Apologies for the long thread, many will find it boring as hell I know, but hopefully someone will find it useful too :)

very intresting read..i find it appaling that this generation and all its "think tanks" can try hold us to ransom over this made up story that we are killing the earth..just fly a long haul east or west and see the reality of how un-important in the bigger picture we are on this vast earth

well about a well after this thread was started, a program on bbc1 news watch i think (were people complain about the bbc news) anyway lots of people wrote in saying why it was never put on the bbc news, they replied by saying there wasn't enough of a story to report on as it broke too soon, when has not having much to report on stopped the bbc in the past and all the facts were released the same day

Always been of the belief that the world climate has cycles these cycles do cause seasons to slip out of the expected norm, also causing changes to the expected rain, sun, wind, sea levels etc. then there is sun activity, we defo are not responsible for that one but it has a massive effect on our world with solar winds and more.

 

 

Jeff TT

 

Jeff, google 'Milankovitch Cycles' , here's a link below...

 

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm

 

 

But beware of Wikipedia entries, as U.K. Government scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley has turned Wikipedia into a global warming movement!

 

"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."

 

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomme...

It's the oldest trick in the book.....You need to sacrifice something or the consequences will be dire.

 

The sacrifice being money and freedom of choice.

 

then make anyone who questions it look like a nut job

It's the oldest trick in the book.....You need to sacrifice something or the consequences will be dire.

 

The sacrifice being money and freedom of choice.

 

then make anyone who questions it look like a nut job

 

i agree with the above 110%..media controll x disaster = power over people.

Sod it, i`m gonna start burning my farts!

Sod it, i`m gonna start burning my farts!

 

already do mate :tt2: just watch out for backdraft :cursing:lol

This will bore most people to death, but for those that may be interested here's a nice summary of the climategate emails.

 

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

This will bore most people to death, but for those that may be interested here's a nice summary of the climategate emails.

 

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

 

nah wasnt too boring :D

 

love this quote from one of the guilty parties when they knew the truth was leaking out....haha...cover your tracks boys!

 

"As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all; it’s about plausibly deniable accusations."

 

must be galling to spend almost 2 decades looking for global warming and then finding it elusive, vague, confusing and uncoporative...must be here somewhere?....its a kind of big budget loch ness monster story :D

This will bore most people to death, but for those that may be interested here's a nice summary of the climategate emails.

 

http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

 

didnt make me way though all of it but enough to know that money is the root of all evil!!:sneaky2:

 

dan.:tongue_smilie:

Hilarious behind the scenes footage of the Climategate scandal...

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/ilovecarbondioxide#p/a...

 

Highly recommended, I was in stitches watching this !

 

The others are worth watching too, especially "A justin credible climategate christmas" which features a great catchy song called "hide the decline"!

Hilarious behind the scenes footage of the Climategate scandal...

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/ilovecarbondioxide#p/a...

 

Highly recommended, I was in stitches watching this !

 

The others are worth watching too, especially "A justin credible climategate christmas" which features a great catchy song called "hide the decline"!

 

:lol::lol: still waiting to hear the reasons behind all the snow from the global warming crew!:confused1:

 

dan.:tongue_smilie:

:lol::lol: still waiting to hear the reasons behind all the snow from the global warming crew!:confused1:

 

dan.:tongue_smilie:

 

lol you missed it mate they (met office etc) were on newsnight a week back they said the cause of all this snow was....wait for it.........global warming :whistling:

I understand, but the legal MOT limit is completely separated from physical low emission cars. The two aren't related as such...if you get my meaning. The co2 limit for MOT tests is literally to stop unhealthy amounts of co2 that are above a governed limit. It does not care about a lower limit, merely stopping cars with very high co2 levels from being on the streets.

 

Dont forget we are talking about 2 different gasses here!

 

The MOT test does not check CO2 emissions! It only tests CO!

 

CO (carbon monoxide) is formed during combustion & is relatively low (0.3% or lower on modern cars)

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a by product of any combustion & will be quite high! (14% or so)

Actually the better the fuel is burning the higher this will be!! :blink:

 

Making matters worse is the fact that the cats on a vehicle convert CO & HC's into CO2 :clap:

 

Paul

:lol::lol: still waiting to hear the reasons behind all the snow from the global warming crew!:confused1:

 

dan.:tongue_smilie:

 

 

It's not global warming, it's climate change.

 

It'll bring about more extreme conditions rather than just warm everywhere up a bit.

 

Climatology is not the same as meterology.

 

 

IIRC no major credible scientific body has denied the existance rapid, man made climate changce since 2007.

All I want is a hot summer and a warm winter please:yawn:

It's not global warming, it's climate change.

 

It'll bring about more extreme conditions rather than just warm everywhere up a bit.

 

Climatology is not the same as meterology.

 

 

IIRC no major credible scientific body has denied the existance rapid, man made climate changce since 2007.

 

LOL...CD where have you been mate?...read the email exchanges its all laid out clear as day, lots of people dont agree with them there is no consensus in the scientific world on this issue (they however try to cover up this fact) so they go on to ignore it and adjust their reports to suit the case for climate change. the way they treated the tree rings evidence is jaw-dropping but hey ho its money (ours) :D

LOL...CD where have you been mate?...read the email exchanges its all laid out clear as day, lots of people dont agree with them there is no consensus in the scientific world on this issue (they however try to cover up this fact) so they go on to ignore it and adjust their reports to suit the case for climate change. the way they treated the tree rings evidence is jaw-dropping but hey ho its money (ours) :D

 

I'm a family man these days! And got back into bikes. Still got the Zed though.

 

I suspect a lot of the "don't believe in global warming" the tinfoil hat brigade / media spin. Also people don't want to believe something so potentially dangerous.

 

Scientists do not need to invent anything to keep themselves in work. There's plenty for them to do anyway. I'm convinced the world's scientific community is very much in agreement about climate change being very real.

 

You can find on-line stuff to back up almost anything, no matter how mad or incorrect it is - look at all the Twin Towers conspiracy theories for example. Missiles? Smoke demons? Mossad? Some people will believe anything.

 

 

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

LOL...

I think you'll find very few people that don't believe that the climate is changing (maybe those with their heads in the sand..lol), the worlds climate has alway changed!

the questions are "what effect is man's contribution", "can we do anything to change it" and "are we really doing everything possible to avoid problems"

It seems to me that the world governments think that taxing us and spending the money on meetings and making everyone reduce CO2 production is the answer....

What if that doesn't help? what if it's too late?

WHAT IS PLAN "B"?

How do we stop the floods? how do we control coastal erosion?.....

Most importantly how do we save all the people at risk?????

 

I really don't think the CO2 band-aid is going to do the job!

The climategate scandal is a most welcome, it shall put science back on a firmer footing once all this unpleasantness has been routed out ...

 

... although the real breaking story at the moment is the IPCC Chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and his many, many, many associations with industries dependent upon the policy decisions of the IPCC. This guys got more connections than Goldman Sachs and the taxpayer is subsidising a huge raft of his ventures. He's a multi-millionaire making a killing off the back of 'protecting the worlds poor and vulnerable from the dangers of climate change'. His conflict of interests are becoming untenable as this story continues to unfold, hopefully it shall crack the IPCC false consensus wide open and end this nonsense once and for all.

 

But then there are extremely powerful vested interests in the topic of climate change, this story has been a really exciting one to follow over the past couple of months.

 

Pachauri: Conflict of Interest @ EU Referendum (would definitely recommend adding EUReferendum to your blogrolls! Always a riveting read on the international/European level, the author Richard North is the one hot on the tails of Pachauri and is bringing the breaking news way ahead of the dead tree press)

 

 

Heres a picture of him adjacent to the high priest himself, take a good look and remember his face, for soon he shall fall from grace:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/ilovecarbondioxide#p/a/u/1/zuGtrdAD40o

 

:bow:

Dont forget we are talking about 2 different gasses here!

 

The MOT test does not check CO2 emissions! It only tests CO!

 

CO (carbon monoxide) is formed during combustion & is relatively low (0.3% or lower on modern cars)

CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a by product of any combustion & will be quite high! (14% or so)

Actually the better the fuel is burning the higher this will be!! :blink:

 

Making matters worse is the fact that the cats on a vehicle convert CO & HC's into CO2 :clap:

 

Paul

 

Nice!

 

On the subject of cars, don't forget to ACT ON CO2 everyone, and drive 5 miles less per week!

 

Following the govern-mental waste of money on that riduculous advert, I did this little sum. The link below shows us that UK road transport is responsible for 20% of total UK CO2 emissions. Of that 20%, 57% is attributed to cars, which gives us 11.4% of the total.

 

Here's where it gets futile... 21% of our atmosphere is oxygen, 78% is Nitrogen, and the remaining 1% is mainly Argon, with some water vapour and several other trace gases, one of which is CO2.

 

Atmospheric CO2 is just 0.038% (380ppmv parts per million by volume)

 

Global human CO2 emissions account for 4% of total atmospheric CO2, so 0.038 x 4% = 0.0015% (15ppmv)

 

UK total human CO2 emissions account for 2% of the global human total, so 0.0015 x 2% = 0.00003% (0.3ppmv)

 

UK cars account for 11.4% of total uk emissions, so we end up with 0.00003 x 11.4% = 0.0000035% (0.035ppmv)

 

Conclusion : If cars were altogether removed from UK roads, atmospheric CO2 concentration would be lowered by 0.035% of 1 part in a million (0.0000035%).

 

Needless to say that is less than futile, so asking us to drive 5 miles less per week would be mega futile to the extent of being almost immeasurable! The oceans de-gas and re-sink huge amounts of CO2 naturally anyway, always following natural temperature changes NEVER preceding them. But apart from all that, CO2 is actually diminished anyway at just 0.038%, and rasing that amount would be very beneficial to plants, forestry, farming and humans.

 

 

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/03/12/uk-new-car-co...

It's not global warming, it's climate change.

 

It'll bring about more extreme conditions rather than just warm everywhere up a bit.

 

Climatology is not the same as meterology.

 

 

IIRC no major credible scientific body has denied the existance rapid, man made climate changce since 2007.

 

I'm afraid you True Believers don't get off the hook that easilly. Man Made Climate change as it's now called, exists due to the flawed theory of human carbon dioxide emissions causing a green house effect in the atmosphere, and preventing warmth from radiating out to space. This is a flawed theory (as I'll explain in the next post) but never the less the whole concept of man made climate change is based on this global warming effect.

 

Are you now claiming that human carbon dioxide does not cause a greenhouse effect, but it infact changes climate in some other fanciful way unrelated to warming?! It's a well known fact that natural global warming decreases temperature differences between the poles and the equator, thus leading to more stable air mass and less extreme weather events. Global cooling increases temperature differences and air pressure thus resulting in more extreme weather events. Arse about face for your theory then.

A brief explanation of the greenhouse effect, which is in no way comparable to what happens in greenhouses!

 

Without the effect, life on Earth wouldn't be possible as it would be too cold. Greenhouse gases absorb infra red radiation emitted from Earth and re-emit it in all directions, some back to earth some out to space. The greatest and most powerful greenhouse gas is simple water vapour, which accounts for more than 90% of the greenhouse effect. Computer models used for predicting future climate are hoplessly flawed when it comes to water vapour which is overlooked in favour of trace amounts of CO2, the same models predicted a barbecue summer last year and a mild winter this year! They are programmed with flawed enhanced positive feedback mechanisms for alarmism value.

 

Now to the common myth. Warmists will usually state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so adding more and more must result in more and more heat reflected back to Earth. This is false. It is no more than a logical fallacy. Yes it is a mild greenhouse trace gas, but it saturates and has diminishing effects.

 

As a simplistic demonstration of the effects of CO2, imagine greenhouse gases in the atmosphere representing 10 duvets on your bed (9 for water vapour 1 for CO2/Methane/Nitrous oxide) (water vapour accounts for 90% of green house gases) whilst you're snug as a bug inside. Adding another duvet will make no difference, adding another 10,20,30 or more duvets will make no difference. So it is with CO2.

 

The effect of carbon dioxide on temperature is logarithmic and thus climate sensitivity decreases with increasing concentration. The first 20 ppm of carbon dioxide has a greater temperature effect than the next 400 ppm. Remember, atmospheric CO2 concentration is just 380 ppmv (0.038%) and of that amount less than 4% is of human origin. Reducing that 4% to 3% or even zero would have no effect whatsoever on global climate. Meanwhile, as I said before the oceans de-gas and re-sink CO2 at huge rates naturally, always following temperature never preceding it.