Global Warming Conspiracy Smoking Gun?

global warming, climate change, global warming emails, hackers, Al Gore, Ken Bingham, oneutah.org

White hat hackers, deserving of the Nobel Peace Price, procured emails from a British University server, hosting some of the most prominent global warming researchers, exposes a conspiracy to manipulate data, overstate conclusions and hide contrary evidence.

From the New York Times

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “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,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.”

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

In one email they even refer to the death of a global warming skeptic as “cheering news

When the story first broke the University and scientists tried to deny the emails authenticity but since then the scientists have fessed up and admitted they are authentic but somehow think they should not be held accountable because the emails were taken by nefarious means.

So far the MSM has either ignored the story or are trying to discredit the scandal because of the hackers but the fact is these emails show a culture of corruption among leading global warming “scientists” and at best shows they have a circle the wagon mentality that has clouded their scientific judgment.

There are calls for congressional investigations on what has been dubbed “climategate” but seeing that so many in Congress stand to benifit by the conspiracy it will go about as far as ACORN investigations but this may become too big to contain.

These hackers do bring to mind the two young journalists who exposed ACORN and brought it to its knees, Likewise, this has the potential of finally putting to rest the greatest scientific conspiracy in history.

extra

Wall Street Journal has a link to download the emails (over 60 MB).

http://washingtonindependent.com/68729/is-climategate-really-the-game-changer-skeptics-say-it-is

http://www.examiner.com/x-16500-Lake-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d23-Climategate-Hackers-may-have-struck-the-mother-load

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091123/hacked-global-warming-emails-pose-further-legal-risk-global-warming-emails-hoax-global-warming-consp.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6634282/Lord-Lawson-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-UEA-global-warming-data-manipulation.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming-emails.html

And hundreds more: Google Search on Climategate.

, , ,

  1. #1 by cav on November 23, 2009 - 10:07 pm

    ‘They’ know exactly what’s coming down the pipes, in terms of climate issues, and by fucking god ‘they’ are going to stay ahead of the curve as long as possible.

    My gut instinct thought (and I do admit to being kafkaesque in the extreme) is that nobody is going to fucking ride out the climate issues TOO MUCH longer than anybody else.

    So bring it on dipshit, I predict a coincidental (but no less deniable) petrol crunch just to sweeten the bite and to augment the folklore of any who might remain.

  2. #2 by Bill Cherry Jr on November 23, 2009 - 10:42 pm

    Interesting how the hatred spills out.

    Anyway, My personal opinion is that it really does not matter whether Global Warming is real or not. The fact remains that humans are impacting the environment in a negative way. And most of us are so selfish and ego-centric that we really just do not care. (at least not until it effects us directly) The idea that the scientists might be exaggerating the evidence is nothing new. It happens on both sides of the playing field. It is human nature. The trick is to find the balance of the two sides and sort out the BS.

    Oh, and the foul language only makes you look stupid.

  3. #3 by Ken Bingham on November 23, 2009 - 10:47 pm

    Bill

    The only problem is we are considering spending billions along with extreme restrictions on human behavior to try and effect carbon dioxide because it is thought to cause global warming. The money we spend on falsehoods is less money available for real environmental problems.

  4. #4 by Bill Cherry Jr on November 23, 2009 - 10:57 pm

    Ken,
    I think that most people are sincere in their efforts, or at least their concerns about the planet. It is true that there are multiple gasses which contribute to the ‘greenhouse’ effect. And every now and then one becomes more important than the other. The obvious which we see everyday but ignore is air pollution. Which we have conveniently spun into calling an ‘inversion’.(I know, its a real phenomenon) So the coal run plants are definitely large contributors as are all the drivers here. Myself included. I think the big oil and coal etc companies would have us believe it is impractical to seek out alternative fuel sources simply because they would have to change and that would cost them money. Which shows you where their ethics lie.

  5. #5 by cav on November 23, 2009 - 11:24 pm

    We’ll just civilly discuss this till we choke.

    And I look stupid.

  6. #6 by Becky Stauffer on November 24, 2009 - 5:26 am

    Cav, your language is fine by me, and I have to say ditto to your comment.

    Ken’s little tempest in a teapot here is enough to make people feel comfortable and justified in wasting and polluting our world to their hearts’ content. We foul the air, the water, the ground. We don’t care what horrible toxins we intake or their effect on our children right now, let alone future generations.

    Here in Utah, many are so extreme, they could only be called ‘anti-environment’. If only the LDS church would come out with a statement to the effect that we are “stewards” of the Earth, maybe those good members would see the importance of caring for and preserving precious resources. Oh yeah, the church already said that. Someone’s not listening.

  7. #7 by Weer'd Beard on November 24, 2009 - 5:58 am

    Ahhh Becky hoists yet another straw man.

    Why stick with just one lie when DOZENS are just as dishonest!

  8. #8 by Bill Cherry Jr on November 24, 2009 - 6:04 am

    Becky,
    I wasn’t going to bring the LDS thing into it. But, they are the most environmentally unfriendly people. They will not ‘get a revelation’ until it is required by law or public opinion is really strong. Like letting Black folks join the church or suddenly accepting gays. The LDS folks are a ‘civil law’ oriented group. Not ‘moral law’. But, that does not mean that they can not be shown the truth. Only that they arrogantly assert that they alone have the monopoly on truth.
    You’d think that when Jesus gets back they would like to show Him how well they took care of His stuff. But, I get the impression that taking care of it implies a lack of faith in their eyes.

  9. #9 by Becky Stauffer on November 24, 2009 - 6:06 am

    Weerd, it’s a little hard to debate with you if you aren’t more specific about your objections.

  10. #10 by Becky Stauffer on November 24, 2009 - 6:08 am

    Bill, that’s what you would think, but it’s just the opposite. There’s a real waste-the-earth-the-faster-the-better attitude here in Utah.

  11. #11 by Ken Bingham on November 24, 2009 - 6:59 am

    Does anyone have anything of substance to say about these emails other than it doesn’t matter if global warming is a lie we should spend billions on it anyway?

  12. #12 by Becky Stauffer on November 24, 2009 - 7:17 am

    Ken,

    What scientific facts are different as a result of these obscure emails? Step back from this little contrived scandal and look again at the changes happening, the accelerated rate at which changes are happening. It’s all been detailed here before on other threads. What facts are different? Those emails do not change scientific facts.

  13. #13 by cav on November 24, 2009 - 7:35 am

    Well thanks Becky and g’morning all. I’ll try, for the sake of those with sensitivity that way, to curb my profanity, but the status quo is the sucketh and our imaginations are wonting.

    But, whether it’s nukular holocost or global warming, we keep coming up with particularly threatening notions that suggest: We’re all gonna die. En mass.

    For some reason, that sort of rankles me. Don’t know about you.

    Oh yea, and let’s not forget about the conspiracy to undercut the coal / car lobby. Not gonna happen anyway, so might as well suck on that one for the duration.

  14. #14 by Cliff Lyon on November 24, 2009 - 8:25 am

    Those e-mails have been thoroughly reviewed by the skeptic community. No smoking gun has been found as further indicated by Ken’s inability to identify anything nefarious in them.

  15. #15 by James Farmer on November 24, 2009 - 9:06 am

    Does anyone have anything of substance to say about these emails other than it doesn’t matter if global warming is a lie we should spend billions on it anyway?

    Ken:

    Sorry, but it is hard for me to give credence to your concerns in the top post when you, yourself, endorsed the same type of shenanigans perpetrated by the Bush administration when it came to drumming up support for the Iraq war.

    Yet again, you prove little more than you are a partisan hypocrite! Have a nice day.

  16. #16 by Weer'd Beard on November 24, 2009 - 9:33 am

    Becky Stauffer :
    Weerd, it’s a little hard to debate with you if you aren’t more specific about your objections.

    How about your desire to debate and defend your convictions for a start?

  17. #17 by cav on November 24, 2009 - 9:51 am

    “Have a nice day.”

    James Farmer

    Commie! Seek help! Soon you’ll be leaning Muslim.

    (snark disclaimer taken for granted)

  18. #18 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 10:11 am

    The science is in the undisputed fact that sea level has risen almost 400 feet in about 13k years. No “Science” has described the mechanism of how this occurred. There is only speculation as the evidence is not yet discovered. The question has been on the minds of geologists since they first realized that glaciers were melting back, long before modern man.

    Contrast this hesitation to make declarative statement as to why massive continental glaciers melted beginning 13k years ago,to the extent that sea level has risen 400 feet and you have to ask yourself how did science become so sure of itself using tainted and a very brief time frame of data? In think this is where you will find the politics driving the subject.

    The example of the town of Gletch(Glacier) in Switzerland is a good demonstration. The monastary right in town is where the terminus used to be, and the retreat has been on since well before 1870. There are signs along the hike as to where the terminus was as years went by. It is halfway up the mountain now, some 4-5 miles away.

    Global warming has been ongoing generally, overall, for at least 13k years. The sea level readings don’t lie. No matter what mankind should prepare himself for the possibility that all the glacial ice will melt. 7% of the worlds ice is in mountain glaciers, the rest is pack ice, which is thin and doesn’t amount to much volume, and then of course the bulk in Antarctica. If all of it melts on land, the estimate is that sea level will rise 200 feet. 1/2 of what has already occurred within the last 13k years.

    *From here http://science.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm

    *The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world’s ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.

    In fact overall Antarctic ice is on the increase. It has been snowing down there heavier than in any time we as humans know of. Many buildings and installations have been lost, buried or crushed in recent years. Snow stacked over 40 feet begins to compress and turns to ice in time, when the ice is over 40 feet thick it begins to flow. That process is happening now at the South Pole.

    This is what to prepare for. Basins like the Great Basin, where you live may fill up, like it was 20k years ago when SLC Valley was under 850 ft of water. Global warming and drought dried that mess up over time, and left you with the desert you live in today. Doesn’t mean it cannot come back very quickly.

    Recognize that the Anazasi disappeared due to climate change, and the only difference between them and ourselves is our machines and fuels to mitigate the outcome. We’re the survivors of a disaster that began 13k years ago, and has been with us every single day since that time. It is only now the majority is waking to the fact that this is the case.

    We need a much more reliable and powerful energy source to remain here in the context of future possible disasters. We need to exceed capacities, not conserve, though we now must due to cost or scarcity. Conservation will lead to morbidity of people in the face of the world’s uninhibited changes. We are only here in such numbers due to a warming Earth, and our control of masses of energy/power.

    The fear that is being promoted only benefits certain groups, groups that want more of your money and life’s work. They make no plans to fix much of anything, what is proposed is nothing short of the decline of modern man. People won’t comply, that is already obvious.

    The dynamic event continues.

  19. #19 by shane on November 24, 2009 - 10:11 am

    well done Weer’d we all know exactly what your blathering about now….

    These hackers do bring to mind the two young journalists who exposed ACORN and brought it to its knees, Likewise, this has the potential of finally putting to rest the greatest scientific conspiracy in history.

    Well Ken, at least we know you don’t blow things out of proportion…

    I can’t wait for your expose’ on the 3 christians that have out of wedlock marriage that brings all of religion to its knees!

    The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics,

    That isn’t a culture of corruption Ken, that is trying to explain your research to people like you who haven’t enough knowledge, training, or background to understand.

    Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.

    Well it is good to see that they are wrong about that fear and we are a sensible rational public that will carefully and thoughtfully…. Ahh hell i can’t even finish that.

    At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years.

    Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present.

    I know if i am worried about temperature i personally figure the tree rings (a complex many variable dependent natural process) are right and the (simple physical process) thermometer is wrong.

    That is how good the climate change conspiracy is! They are in yer thermometers, messin’ with cher readings!

    ….but don’t look at the fake grassroots campaign by the API. Don’t look at the rich companies that hire PR firms to create doubt about the issue…

    …just look at the 6 or so lines cherry picked from almost 4000 files. That is a good representation of reality there Ken.

  20. #20 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 10:33 am

    The bottom line is that this revelation that “scientists” are cooking their books for political benefit, based on what they believe should happen, is absolutely not science.

    Very foolish for them to have conducted themselves so, for now who with reasonable doubts will pay attention to the “scientific” community that operates in a dishonest manner?

    The facts don’t matter, the appearance of malfeasance will score their efforts, and if they do believe in their own lies and obfuscations, they have then well screwed the pooch by doing this. Only 35% of American believe in APW anyway, and this will tip for many sitting on the fence.

    Very stupid move by the “scientists” which is why they are scientists and not politicians. Politicians will have to try and fix this, but once trust is lost by a public, and it was waning anyway, the gig is up.

  21. #21 by shane on November 24, 2009 - 10:35 am

    #18. No.

    Glacial melt is not the primary current cause of sea level rise. True, increasing temperatures result in sea level rise by the thermal expansion of water and through the addition of water to the oceans from the melting of continental ice sheets. However thermal expansion, which is well-quantified, is currently the primary factor in sea level rise and is expected to be the primary contributor over the course of the next century. Current NASA and climate change research does a very good job of explaining the methods and mechanisms of the met water pulse warming and sea level change in the past. That is in fact exactly how we know the greenhouse gases now cause additional warming, because there is more warming in the system than the models that explain the pre-industrial past account for, and the difference happens to be exactly what the changes in the atmosphere would suggest based on the physical properties of the gases involved.

    As to the lovely red herring of Antarctic ice increase: Yes, it is increasing. As almost all warming models suggest. The warming is a total average temperature. It isn’t necessarily warming in a specific location. In fact it is very often colder, much colder, in certain locations.

    Now here is something maybe you can work out for me. If it is colder in places like antarctica, and many place experience colder than normal winters, but warmer overall on average, what does that mean the warm temps are doing?

  22. #22 by shane on November 24, 2009 - 10:37 am

    Glenn Hoefer :
    The bottom line is that this revelation that “scientists” are cooking their books for political benefit, based on what they believe should happen, is absolutely not science.

    The bottom line, if you could read, is that nothing in these emails says they are cooking the books.

  23. #23 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 11:56 am

    Everyone is cooking the books Shane, this isn’t science, it’s political. Just because your side of it got caught, doesn’t make the other side “better” or right. They are all full of it.

    So you make the admission that no we are not having rising sea levels due to ice melt. The ice isn’t melting but the oceans are getting warmer. Have to wonder how the 30,000 active volcanoes on the bottom of the Pacific are impacting that.

    Now sea level it is due expanding water, always a component if water warms. That can only go so far 20-40 feet maybe.

    Your explanations are speculative Shane, as are Nasa’s, wouldn’t be the first time they exploded something in error, and in fact no one explains how the mechanism that melted a body of land based ice to the extent that sea level rose 400 feet in 13k years. We may be looking at what we think is happening, but it is hardly definitive.

    We know and accept that the Earth is warming, there is nothing but changes and catastrophe as far as we can look back. The question to ask, is stopping it something we can even do? I propose rather figuring out how to live with it, for when unexplained events like the last great melt off occurred, no amount of whatever man thinks he is going to do matters. Where is the evidence you cite for this melt off? Certainly no one is crediting greenhouse gas in the last massive melt down. WHY? It isn’t there.

    So tell me why no scientists can come up for an explanation for why there was “heating in the system” for the most significant event that effected modern man, the melting completely of continental glaciers. No one has these answers.

    Your last question would be valid if it were overall warming we are seeing recently. We are not, it depends on where you are on Earth apparently, and there are so many inputs, that what is occurring is educated guessing, at times the best man can do. Not going to be enough to convince the average man, whatever the consequence.

    I was once on the North Pacific for very long periods of time, and observed water temps for years there. Compared month to month, warmer the water deeper the fish we sought. Even fish adapt until they cannot. In the late 80’s the temp in the NP in the regions I frequented started to get warmer. Since I did not sense much change in land based temps, I concluded for whatever reason the ocean was warming. Most Mtn glaciers are directly adjacent to coastline, 80% on Earth in Alaska. They started receding rapidly and immediately due to the warmer water. Now if greenhouse gas is the driver, why are we seeing big rise in ocean temps, and marginal rises in atmospheric temps. Would not the ocean warming be secondary? We just don’t have enough data to know this Shane.

    My thought is that the oceans are warming up because the inputs of freezing ice melt of high volume is over! The oceans simply warm up because there is nothing to cool them constantly, or far less. The result is mtn glaciers melting away adjacent to the coasts as warm storms do their job. Melt ice.

    Whatever the case it does not matter, as mans input of greenhouse gases is marginal compared to what the earth itself is putting into the atmosphere.

    Now the Continental glaciers have melted, there is no end of new vegetation rotting all day providing carbon, not to mention methane, a irremediable greenhouse gas far more powerful than carbon. Giant bubbles of methane deep in the ocean could bubble up, probably already has. Is man helping, yes sure. Is the world warming? Seas expanding yes, but in your mind ice not melting, I don’t know about that, but the glaciers I have seen recede in my lifetime has to be going somewhere.

    Let us agree that sea level is the ultimate indicator of warming, and if it isn’t going up much, we should be happy.

    Plans we need to make should involve not developing coastline with permanence, and to be sure figuring out an alternative energy. The world will do what it is going to do, we can affect it, but to what extent is unknown.

    The Earth is rather self correcting. If it warms, more water evaporates, creating larger storms in some areas, drought in others. The rain and melting snow brings down temperature spikes in the region it is falling in, overall this heat will be transferred in mechanical energy, wind, storms, and this will be how the heat dissipates. For a time it will be hot, the it change, maybe not in time for us, or some other species, but the mechanism I am describing cannot be entirely, if at all, attributed to humanity, that would be a stretch. It is stretch.

    Example: The largest greenhouse gas producer by a factor of 3 in the rather industrialized state of
    Washington in totality, these last few years, has been the reactive Mt. St. Helens. We cannot mitigate these kinds of things. There are as I said 30k active volcanos at the bottom of the Pacific.

    To topic; You have only read a portion of the e-mails. To be sure there will be more, in fact, this is bad deal for climate science. Shows up the culture it has.

  24. #24 by Cliff Lyon on November 24, 2009 - 12:19 pm

    Gelnn I see your are still struggling with the specious, amateurish idea that heat somehow dissipates from our atmosphere.

    Good luck with that.

    Since you love so much your own anecdotal experiences, consider for a moment the principle of inversion.

    Hope that helps.

  25. #25 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 12:50 pm

    It does Cliff no matter what you think, how do you imagine that periods in the cretaceous which were far warmer than today evolved to the situation where the better part of the northern hemisphere is under 5-10k feet of ice? This happened. The atmosphere cooled, otherwise we would still have the climate of the cretaceous. The Earth warms, heat increases, it cools, heat dissipates. through the atmosphere into space. If we did not have tectonic activity, and the Sun, the Earth would soon dissipate all of its heat into space, through the atmosphere. This is 6th grade IPS.

    Fudging data surely won’t cool the planet will it?

    What is interesting is that most proponents in APW have very little background in science or any ancillary science training. It is pretty funny. The atmosphere is how heats dissipates Cliff. No clouds over head, heat dissipates into space, clouds, heat stays. So simple even you should be able to figure it out. If warming is occurring it is likely an effect of increased cloud cover, which in fact the case as we continue to study it, like it is in every case when clouds hold heat in the atmosphere.

  26. #26 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 1:21 pm

    Meanwhile no where in what was written above before your post talks about adiabatic cooling or primordial cooling, so where are you getting this from, brain spasm?

    This should help you Cliff, it is from a University. It explains in there that heat actually does dissipate into space. The rate at which this happens, is predicated by cloud cover, and the sources of heat of the planet. Solar heating, tectonic heating(vulcanism etc.) The means of ridding the planet of heat….here Cliff, what does heat do? It Rises yes, until the heat interfaces with other parts of the atmosphere and then space. More 6th Grade IPS.

    This is especially good.

    “Atmosphere has no outer boundary, just fades into space”.

    http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html

    Ever wonder why it gets cold at night in the desert, or on a clear night in the mountains? You do understand the relationship right?

  27. #27 by Ken on November 24, 2009 - 2:06 pm

    Becky

    These are not obscure emails from some low level scientists. These are top scientists from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of University of East Anglia U.K. One of the top global warming research centers that the UN among others gets a good chunk of their research data.

    In some of the emails it has researchers talking about deleting emails so they would not be brought to light under Britain’s freedom of Information act. If Britain’s law is similar to US law then deleting emails would constitute a criminal act. As many have learned the hard way deleting an email does not really delete it. Hopefully an investigation will discover any emails that may have been illegal expunged.

    I don’t think you guys understand the gravity of this situation. The story has only been broken for a week and the main stream media has yet to really pick up on it but mark my words, this is HUGE.

  28. #28 by Uncle Rico on November 24, 2009 - 2:51 pm

    The story has only been broken for a week and the main stream media has yet to really pick up on it.

    What in the hell are you blathering about Ken. Every major (and minor) media outlet in the country (nay, the world) has picked up on the story. You yourself link to the New York Times, the WSJ and “hundreds more.” Repeating the mantra over and over doesn’t make it true. Much to your consternation I am sure, it doesn’t make the story any bigger than it is either.

  29. #29 by cav on November 24, 2009 - 3:04 pm

    What’s HUGE is the story / stories the media is not picking-up on. Take for instance, Blackwaters little war in Pakistan. Now how do you suppose that could be happening without some assistance from the Intel community (branch of the U.S. Govt)?

    Or look at how watered down the HCR has become, and it hasn’t even been to committee.

    Or perhaps you’ld be interested in what the media has to say about the ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan.

    Instead, we get Palin book-signings, and what liars the global warming-baggers have all been, and yes, that’s gotta include Al Gore.

    And to think, he was that close to being the pres.

    What hooey!

  30. #30 by Glenn Hoefer on November 24, 2009 - 4:15 pm

    Time will tell, as it always does. The house of cards is tottering in so many ways.

    The Emperor has no clothes!, uh, African Prince.

    We have not seen the last of Palin, of that I am more sure than anything. She’s been on Oprah, and now has a book. Lookout, America just loves her from heels to buttons.

    After this recent display of leadership, anything looks good, especially when it does.

    Ok the stimulus was supposed to save jobs. Here is the latest from CNBC no less, the Glowbama station. Global warming is the least of Obama’s worries.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009

  31. #31 by Cliff Lyon on November 24, 2009 - 5:21 pm

    Dude (Glenn) the link you sent says the heat dissapated and EVENTUALLY the atmosphere formed.

    Atmosphere – Envelope of gases that surrounds the Earth. Used by life as a reservoir of chemical compounds used in living systems. Atmosphere has no outer boundary, just fades into space. Dense part of atmosphere (97% of mass) lies within 30 km of the Earth (so about same thickness as continental crust).

    * Chemical Composition Today – Nitrogen (N2)- 78%, Oxygen (O2)- 21%, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 0.03 %, plus other miscellaneous gases (H2O for one).

    So here’s the deal. Scientist say 350ppb CO2 is max for balance. We are at about 370ppb CO2.

    Since we put CO2 in the air and the more we put in the higher the measurable level, we are most definetly responsible for global warming.

    THAT is all the fact you need.

  32. #32 by cav on November 24, 2009 - 5:30 pm

    Somebody should research the earthly gravitational pull on HEAT.

    That and tectonic plate drift should settle all questions.

  33. #33 by Bill Cherry Jr on November 24, 2009 - 6:01 pm

    Well, it is a fact that climate change has been a phenomena that has gone on since the beginning of recorded time. It has always happened and it will always happen. It just gets a little more extreme each time. All the Palinite and Beckie parrots have nothing more than emotional rhetoric and polemics as their arguments.

    What is so difficult about cleaning up after oneself?

  34. #34 by Ken on November 24, 2009 - 9:33 pm

    Here is an excellent article from CBS news that shows the media is starting to ask the right questions. This scandal is only at the beginning stage. This HAS rocked the science community and WILL turn the global warming theory on its head.

    Its the beginning of the end of global warming and we didn’t even have to buy carbon credits.

  35. #35 by James Farmer on November 24, 2009 - 11:03 pm

    bingham:

    As stated before, once you are as critical of the evidence that was ignored leading to the invasion of Iraq as you are re global warming, I’ll listen to what you have to say. Until then, however, you are just another self interested repugliscum hack hypocrite.

  36. #36 by shane on November 25, 2009 - 12:21 am

    Glen

    I said: “Glacial melt is not the primary current cause of sea level rise”

    You said: “So you make the admission that no we are not having rising sea levels due to ice melt”

    Ocean thermal expansion leads to an increase in ocean volume at constant mass. Observational estimates of about 1 mm/yr over recent decades are similar to values of 0.7 to 1.1 mm/yr obtained from Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) over a comparable period. Averaged over the 20th century, AOGCM simulations result in rates of thermal expansion of 0.3 to 0.7 mm/yr.
    The mass of the ocean, and thus sea level, changes as water is exchanged with glaciers and ice caps. Observational and modelling studies of glaciers and ice caps indicate a contribution to sea level rise of 0.2 to 0.4 mm/yr averaged over the 20th century.

    -IPCC

    In other words, levels change about .5 mm/yr right now due to expansion, and .3 mm/yr due to additional water. The primary cause is expansion. Not the only cause. Learn to read please.

    This is a prime example of why no posters here take you seriously. To say that ice melt is not the primary cause verse not even a factor is to basically shout to the world that you are incapable of even reading. Combine that with you near pathalogical inability to just use your own name and the fact that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and it is a measure of how kind most posters here are that even speak to you. (that or they are bored as hell, who knows.)

    Now sea level it is due expanding water, always a component if water warms. That can only go so far 20-40 feet maybe.

    I see you are not averse to just pulling numbers out of your ass. I don’t suppose you would care to explain just how you got that number?

    In fact no one explains how the mechanism that melted a body of land based ice to the extent that sea level rose 400 feet in 13k years

    You keep saying that. I don’t think you know what you are talking about… I have to assume you mean the last glacial maximum, though your dates are slightly misleading. In point of fact the majority of evidence for the end of the LGM is that the antarctic shelf broke away and melted rather abruptly. Possibly due to a combination of weight and series of slightly warmer springs.

    The important question is why do you think that understanding of something that long ago, that we have almost no direct evidence of, has more than the most minor of bearing on a climate we are experiencing and able to measure in great detail right now as i type?

    Whatever the case it does not matter, as mans input of greenhouse gases is marginal compared to what the earth itself is putting into the atmosphere.

    The most common version of this BS claim is that volcanoes make more CO2 than we do. In fact they make about 1/160th as much. Perhaps you have some other previously unknown source to reference?

    But perhaps we need to consider the full carbon picture? It’s true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was pretty closely balanced by one coming out.

    What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

    Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.

    We just don’t have enough data to know this Shane

    I love this whole paragraph. You start by saying you were once on the ocean and so you know about the temperatures, yet we don’t have enough data. If you spent every moment of your life on the ocean doing nothing but measuring temperatures, i would bet you would still have less data than a single satellite built for the purpose can gather in a week. But you have enough experience to show why global warming is a conspiracy, and the world wide science community just doesn’t have enough data…

    How can I possibly argue with some one so blind to reason that they can actually say that and mean it?

  37. #37 by shane on November 25, 2009 - 12:31 am

    Ken :
    Here is an excellent article from CBS news that shows the media is starting to ask the right questions. This scandal is only at the beginning stage. This HAS rocked the science community and WILL turn the global warming theory on its head.
    Its the beginning of the end of global warming and we didn’t even have to buy carbon credits.

    OMG Ken, your right….

    Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not,”

    Inhofe, inhofe….. where do i know that name from?

    Oh yes!

    Inhofe’s latest claim is that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”

    Damn! That sounds like it should have ended the conspiracy when it came out! When was that? Says 01/2008….

    Wonder why that didn’t end the debate…

    Oh! Maybe this is why?

    Inhofe’s list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)

    84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.

    49 are retired

    44 are television weathermen

    20 are economists

    70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

    Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.

    At least if we need someone to look into cooked books we know we have the right man for the job!

    INHOFE: I think he’s right. I think what he’s saying is God’s still up there. We’re going through these cycles. … I really believe that a lot of people are in denial who want to hang their hat on the fact, that they believe is a fact, that man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, are causing global warming

    So Ken, any articles that say this rocked the science world that don’t quote a moron that thinks god will save us all and who lies to support his case that this is all lies? Cause that would really look better than the bullshit you have so far.

  38. #38 by cav on November 25, 2009 - 12:49 am

    The One True Truth is at my fingertips.

    Do you think I’ll share?

    No way!

  39. #39 by Bill Cherry Jr on November 25, 2009 - 4:59 am

    cav :
    The One True Truth is at my fingertips.
    Do you think I’ll share?
    No way!

    That is a rather juvenile tactic don’t you think? Its interesting how many people like to think they are smarter than the rocket scientists at NASA.

    This has been an interesting thread. Clever insults and polemic evidence. Time for me to unsubscribe. Perhaps i will be back to further amaze and astound you with my less than average opinion in another one. Nice to meet your cyber-acquaintances!

  40. #40 by Becky Stauffer on November 25, 2009 - 6:22 am

    Nice, drive-by Bill. What exactly did you bring to this discussion? I have no idea why you would lump me in with Palenites. And you clearly are not clever enough to get Cav’s wit. If you look, you’ll find some substance in this thread.

  41. #41 by Glenn Hofer on November 25, 2009 - 8:49 am

    Never said I knew about temperatures Shane, but it is a common statement from subscribers that global warming will affect the northern latitudes more so than southern. I just gave you my anecdotal experiences, which included landing more great white sharks, and having tuna range farther north than most people had seen. Though old timers has seen it before. The temp increased in the Gulf of Alaska about 4 degrees in my time there.

    Shane, no matter what prognostications and gathering data mean absolutely nothing without a relevant time component. What I am saying is that we have in no way reached that time amount for reliable forecasting no matter how many satellites give you numbers.
    In the end of the last ice age, very recently, the fact that a warming event of proportions so VAST no one can understand of give explanation has to factor in, that unfortunately, we just don’t have enough data to convince people, and we are not lead by a group of hypotheticals offered by a group of people that are now proven to be dishonest scientists.

    Shane the dates of HGM and the warm up 13k years ago are not misleading, they are accepted by peer reviewed science. That does not mean they are correct, they are assumptions based on facts collected, mulled over now for about 100 years. Yet they have to do for know. Once we knew that ice ages can return, there is nothing politicians ever thought of doing to prevent this kind of disaster. Consider that cooling to such a state would far worse than the any warming we are to experience in the future even under the most dire “warmer: prognostication.

    The “past” event is really just continuing. If we saw a great melt off 13k years ago Shane, it is continuing with a few stalls.

    Your statement about carbon is pretty amusing Shane, piles of coal and peat, covering thousands of square miles and dozens of feet thick, didn’t come from man. It came from unattached carbon that was then attached and sequestered by plant life. There is no balance in the carbon cycle it would appear, we just happen to be the current mechanism of loading up the unattached carbon. If things go as they have, there could be a spike in plant life growing, as CO2 availability is essential to photosynthesis.

    Cliff, ask any physicist if heat is dissipating from the atmosphere into space. Since the beginning of this planets creation, this has been the case, and always will be the case. It is a baseline feature of floating in space. The atmosphere mitigates it, but it does not stop it from happening. Without constant heat inputs, namely the Sun, the Earth would become a freezing ball of ice in a very short time. Here is question Cliff, does a cloud affect temperature? Cloudy day, sunny day?

    Cliff; This is the thesis by Boltzmann on how the atmosphere dissipates heat. It is a physical law.

    “heat from our atmosphere dissipates into space at a rate proportional to the cube of the temperature”.

    More heat, more dissipation, in a rather geometric curve does dissipation occur. It is not linear is what I mean. It is why the Earth despite all inputs remains within a range of temperature that has been able to sustain life for over 3 billion years, which is when prokaryotes appeared on the planet. Missed the physics class huh Cliff?

  42. #42 by Glen Hofer on November 25, 2009 - 9:01 am

    The “formula” Cliff, as well as my keyboard can do notation.

    Loss ~ Temp^3

  43. #43 by cav on November 25, 2009 - 9:43 am

    Bill Cherry Jr. It’s been a pleasure. Stop back any time.

    Glenn, While sometimes it seems other commenters would discount your stuff immediatlely upon discovering that it is you, I think you’ve done a great job of attempting to reflect the complexity of these subjects. That complexity, by its very existence makes predictability very dificult, but I’d say your offerings are pretty darn good. Thanks.

  44. #44 by Uncle Rico on November 25, 2009 - 10:15 am

    I have no idea why you would lump me in with Palenites.

    I think BCJr was referring to Glen Beck, not you Becky.

    Glenn, While sometimes it seems other commenters would discount your stuff immediatlely upon discovering that it is you, I think you’ve done a great job of attempting to reflect the complexity of these subjects. That complexity, by its very existence makes predictability very dificult, but I’d say your offerings are pretty darn good.

    I don’t necessarily disagree with cav on this, but delivery tends to get in the way, at least for me.

  45. #45 by Glenn Hofer on November 25, 2009 - 10:15 am

    20-40 feet Shane is the number “warmers” pull out their ass to give us a scare that the expansion of water due to rise in temp, joined with their most dire estimates of melting ice will cause us in the next century. The actual rise from expansion is estimated to be 37 inches. 3 feet. If it happens. This comes from any number of physicists doing the math as it is simple. IPCC or otherwise.

    Needless to say nothing in comparison to the beginning of this warming event, in which sea level rose 400 feet in 10,000 years. The last 3k have been rather stable, and that appears to be ending, but we really don’t know.

    As for natural inputs, are you counting your out gassing right now Shane?

    Mt. St. Helens here has exceeded all of man’s inputs of carbon, and masses of other greenhouse gas for the last 3 years in the State of Washington, a state survey. 1 slightly active volcano. This was on the radio in Seattle, between airamerica spots. Warmer capital of the NW.

    1/160? Give me a source. I am referring to all natural inputs.

    To give perspective. NOAA is studying a seamount that has come up without any of their knowledge some 120 miles WNW of Vancouver Island, it is in deep water and it’s existence was made known when a passing vessel outside of lanes reported the gases coming up out of the ocean. 1 of the 30,000. Sorry about the 1/160, I was not aware there you were referring to just volcanoes. Which we know very little about. The underwater ones where most volcanoes are, we know very little about.

    Meanwhile there is no reversing the permafrost melt by any means we have at our disposal, it is happening, will continue, and this is the carbon output, along with the warmer temperatures that will dwarf our own inputs. Already does, and science is only estimating, and we can see how well they can do that. Warming is so much worse than anticipated!! Such a subjective litmus humanity has.

    What if GAIA has decidered that man is bad, and needs to go, m’kay? So before she ever evolved us she placed in the species a self destruct mechanism to ensure we don’t kill the planet. Maybe she needed the planet warmer and just uses us as the means. Then kills us. I guess if I was a primitive that got wise to this I might build a few pyramids too to placate her. Nothing to lose really. Our pyramid appears to be a giant pile of invented money in the form of debt, with a pyramid on it. It will just have to do.

    In doing some reading 30% of the carbon man produces is related to agriculture Shane. The bulk in our own lives coming from our homes. Transportation comprises some 20% of carbon emissions from fuels burned.

    What to tackle first? The 30% of our carbon that comes from Agriculture? The rest from generation, cars, wood fires, etc. etc? In this pathetic long winded discussion I would be satisfied if the city of Salt Lake would better regulate wood burning, like say ban it, along with any electricity provided by coal burning. Are we ready for our sacrifice Shane? I don’t think so, and neither does China.

    Do you own even a solar watch, have a pinwheel Shane? Who here owns anything that would be described as alternative energy? I’m easy, the 2 above is how low the benchmark is. Solar LED Tiki lamps from China made with coal with recycled American plastic count!!

    How many have cars that get over 40 mpg? Consider if that really matters if you drive 1500 miles a month, you are “worse” as an Oakey that drives his pick up 100 miles a month.

    Perspective. Something this subject of APW completely lacks.

    One thing is certain to me anyway, due to this event, the frauds exposure and the economy being in it’s state, global warming as a political vehicle for world taxes is dead, dead.

  46. #46 by James Farmer on November 25, 2009 - 10:23 am

    Cliff; This is the thesis by Boltzmann on how the atmosphere dissipates heat. It is a physical law.

    “heat from our atmosphere dissipates into space at a rate proportional to the cube of the temperature”.

    Missed the physics class huh Cliff?

    Glenn:

    Um. Apparently, you missed class, too. First, the flux of thermal radiation is proportional to T**4, not T**3. Second, and more importantly, you completely ignore the so-called greenhouse effect. While thermal radiation is emitted by the earth, the greenhouse gases absorb some of that radiation and reemit some back to the earth. The denser the greenhouse gases – e.g., CO2 – the more effective the reradiation back to earth becomes. Hence, global warming.

    Sometimes your basal instinct for unsubstantiated criticism just gets the better of you, Glenn. Might I suggest a nap? Or, better yet, maybe an hour or two with a remedial physics book?

  47. #47 by cav on November 25, 2009 - 10:37 am

    And thank you too: Unka, James, Becky, et al. Keep up the good work.

  48. #48 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 10:38 am

    You are welcome Cav. It is why I INSIST on peer reviewed science get to the bottom of the absolutely profound warming that melted continental ice to the extent that sea level has risen 125 meters in 13k years.

    “6000-8000 years ago, he laid down the Law”.

    So goes the B-52’s song. They are speaking of Hammurabi, the first King to codify a body of law. Had most to do with marriage and business. Go figure.

    There we were building buildings, burning wood, coal. Digging holes in the ground, tilling fields. Shitting in so many ways. The event that allowed such a growth in humanity a scant 5000 years before Hammurabi, (possibly)…, is the enormous melt off, that rose sea level 400 feet..it isn’t that long ago people. The mass melt off is absolutely relevant to what is going on today.

    Trees grew where ice receded, amazing carbon uptake occurred, the boreal forests emerged, animals flourished. It is why we succeeded beyond any cave dwellers dreams. Imagine all of Canada, and most of the most fertile land in North America without a single thing substantial living on it! Then tell me that climate change this recent has nothing to do with geologic events that came about. It is all a continuum, we do not just pick a point and forget all the rest! Especially not something so vast and all encompassing, and unexplained, like the end of the last ice age!!

    The hypothesis derived without considering this is fundamentally flawed in my opinion. It is like watching a movie from 2/3rds in and trying to figure out what has been going on. There!! A simple explanation to the TV crowd, they should be able to well understand it.

    Onward Cav.

  49. #49 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 10:57 am

    To the fourth power? It’s cubed for any reference check I have made. The cubed portion is from the “space” side of the event. Point is, it is generally geometric in progression. What you have written is incorrect as well. As long as you are dealing in Kelvin it is ok. Your own formula is a rough approximation.

    Here is the real equation. My above point is to show that heat bleeds away the more that is applied. the cubed formula is easier to understand. The whole think is very complex even in a static model.

    exp = 2.818**(rT)

    loss = 2.818^(rT)

    Despite any fluctuations and greenhouse effect, there is ALWAYS heat bleeding away into space from the Earth system. Otherwise we would have cooked off long ago. You never took physics Cliff.

    UPDATE !! UPDATE !! UPDATE !!

    I, Glenn Hoefer, stated incorrectly the physics relating to heat loss, both in this comment and my comment above. In fact, james farmer is correct in stating that heat loss is proportional to the 4 power of temperature. Here is proof of how incorrect I am:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    I apologize for the confusion I have created following my incorrect assertion. Indeed, I am not as smart as even a Fifth Grader when it comes to physics.

  50. #50 by James Farmer on November 25, 2009 - 11:01 am

    Glenn:

    Your take on global warming reminds me of the Italian drunk who walked out of a bar and dropped his car keys. Unfortunately for the drunk, there was no light outside of the bar so, instead, he walked across the street and looked for his keys under a working street lamp.

    While what you say is not necessarily incorrect, it is generally wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Maybe you did better in chemistry than physics during high school. Did you ever perform the experiment where a precipitate is released from solution upon the slightest increase in the concentration of one or more reactants? The reactant in the case of GW is CO2, and a powerful argument can be and is being made that we are closely approaching a limit loosely analogous to the chemistry experiment.

    Your history lessons are interesting – sometimes – but just highly irrelevant to the matters at hand.

  51. #51 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 11:25 am

    I guess the related story is something you have personally experienced Jim. I have never heard about the Italian version….and none of this is going to prove APW.

    I got the formula from a Ph.d physicist, and
    climatologist. Want to talk to him?

    “While what you say is not necessarily incorrect”,

    Jim knows that heat bleeds from the Earth’s atmosphere into space no matter the atmosphere’s make up. Something you absolutely insisted was not true. For months now.

    just a tad premature Cliff?

  52. #52 by James Farmer on November 25, 2009 - 11:34 am

    Glenn:

    Just for the record, no one – and that means no one, not Cliff, Richard, cav or anyone else involved in the dabate – is disputing the fact that heat “bleeds” (I prefer the term “radiates”) from the earth into space.

    Why in the heck are you hung up and so fixated on proving a point that no one disputes?

  53. #53 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 11:34 am

    Rico, I have seen what you all do to Ken, I’m surely not going to wait for it. Voices of diversity are so scarce here that they often serve as intellectual dinner to a group of starving progressive wolves that hope to use the site as a cudgel to promote their views.

    I once posted on here as a progressive, and it became boring so I shifted for amusement sake. The delivery not progressive enough? This is a site for loud political discourse, right? What is your particular problem with the delivery. Be specific, and maybe I can cater to your emotional needs so you can be more receptive to learning some other viewpoints.

  54. #54 by OneUtah on November 25, 2009 - 11:38 am

    Actually Cliff made a reference to it recently on site , and has in the past insisted on it. He actually does not believed the earth’s heat does not go into space. Yesterday, today is a different story. What a difference a day makes.

    I do it only to show how little lay understanding there is on this issue. If you do not understand that the Earth’s heat dissipates into space, then WTF can you possibly bring to the table other than some crap you heard and just repeat?

    THINK man!! You have the tools, Cliff does not.

  55. #55 by OneUtah on November 25, 2009 - 11:40 am

    ….Otherwise Rico, you are simply prejudiced against my online personality. Which you can imagine to be me. Pick an avatar for me please, I am struggling with the choice.

  56. #56 by OneUtah on November 25, 2009 - 11:50 am

    Cliff actually did not believe that the heat from the Earth’s atmosphere dissipated into space. Yesterday. Correcting the typo.

  57. #57 by OneUtah on November 25, 2009 - 11:53 am

    The typo for the record is not mine, any posts I make can and have been manipulated by the webmaster, or whoever has access. Yet we are to believe in integrity from the people promoting APW as a reality. Speaks right to the e-mail hack, to be sure, rather ironic as well.

  58. #58 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 12:59 pm

    UPDATE !! UPDATE !! UPDATE !!

    I, Glenn Hoefer, stated incorrectly the physics relating to heat loss, both in this comment and my comment above. In fact, james farmer is correct in stating that heat loss is proportional to the 4 power of temperature. Here is proof of how incorrect I am:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    I apologize for the confusion I have created following my incorrect assertion. Indeed, I am not as smart as even a Fifth Grader when it comes to physics.

  59. #59 by Uncle Rico on November 25, 2009 - 1:32 pm


    I once posted on here as a progressive, and it became boring so I shifted for amusement sake. The delivery not progressive enough? This is a site for loud political discourse, right? What is your particular problem with the delivery. Be specific, and maybe I can cater to your emotional needs so you can be more receptive to learning some other viewpoints.

    Ok Glenn, this is what I meant. I could give a rat’s ass if your viewpoint is progressive or conservative. The world’s full of progressives and conservatives. Although my view on most topics generally veers to toward the former, that is not universally the case and I appreciate differing viewpoints (even though I may not always agree with them) to challenge my belief systems and to prevent incessant reverberations. I enjoy an intellectual tete-a-tete just like the next guy. And I accept the fact that when it comes to certain topics, folks (including me) have strong and differing viewpoints that spill over and result in some heated discussions and pointed (and sometimes unnecesary) jabs. I’ve given and taken those as has everybody. So it’s not your viewpoint as my comment in agreement with cav was intended to communicate.

    Rather, its the never ending games (e.g., posting under a myriad of identities for the sole purpose of your own titillation), its the smug air of intellectual superiority in every instance, its the seeming self-absorbed need to prove to yourself and anybody within earshot how clever you are (certainly, more clever than anybody else that posts on this site), its the insinuation that everybody else (or most everyone else) is a complete dumb fuck and is here to cure your boredom and, through their abject stupidity, amuse you. That’s what I meant by “delivery.” It was my attempt to be somewhat tactful and avoid saying what I just said.

    Given that is my perception, it is difficult to get through the haze that envelopes your posts to get to the substance. So, although you are obviously an intelligent and well informed guy, your “delivery” obfuscates the substance of what you have to contribute. At least it does for guys like me who obviously don’t have the intellectual horsepower and capacity that you have.

    I don’t know you personally so all I have to go by is your online personality(ies). In light of that, I accept that my perception of you may be way off base. Hell, you and I might even be buds in the non-virtual world. If that is the case, I’m man enough to admit I’m wrong and will offer my apologies. Otherwise, I guess what the above communicates is that you’re right- I am prejudiced against your online personality(ies). And that was my point all along. For me, your “delivery” interferes with the substance of what you have to say.

    -Rico

  60. #60 by shane on November 25, 2009 - 2:17 pm

    Glenn Hoefer :
    You are welcome Cav. It is why I INSIST on peer reviewed science get to the bottom blahblahblahblah

    Yet you claim magically make up 20-40 feet of rising seas and incorrect heat dump numbers and invented carbon numbers. Isn’t that odd?

    “1/160? Give me a source. I am referring to all natural inputs.”

    And that number, if you read the whole sentence, refers to a comparison to volcanoes, as be fitting your made up claim about washington state.

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

    Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
    Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

    “Do you own even a solar watch, have a pinwheel Shane? Who here owns anything that would be described as alternative energy? I’m easy, the 2 above is how low the benchmark is. Solar LED Tiki lamps from China made with coal with recycled American plastic count!!

    How many have cars that get over 40 mpg? Consider if that really matters if you drive 1500 miles a month, you are “worse” as an Oakey that drives his pick up 100 miles a month.”

    Well lets see, yes i do own a solar watch, and purchased enough wind and solar blocks to offset our home every year, and have a hybrid, and bike to the U when I can, and drive 1500 miles in about 9 months not one month, so your basically wrong on every count. Anything else?

    And not one single word of this has anything to do at all with the point of this post by Ken. Do try to follow along and not just get lost in your pointless stories about fishing….

  61. #61 by shane on November 25, 2009 - 2:20 pm

    James Farmer :
    Glenn:
    Your take on global warming reminds me of the Italian drunk who walked out of a bar and dropped his car keys. Unfortunately for the drunk, there was no light outside of the bar so, instead, he walked across the street and looked for his keys under a working street lamp.
    While what you say is not necessarily incorrect, it is generally wholly irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    We have a winner. You sir win 4 interwebs and may pass go and collect 200 netpoints.

  62. #62 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 3:19 pm

    It has to be tough to imagine yourself smart and be so duped Shane. My sympathies.

    You get smell your own farts like on South Park Shane for all your part. You are truly making a difference.

    There must be a threat of some kind in what I’m posting, why else would whole bodies of posts be gone or manipulated? Sorry, Shane, everybody knows about this anyway, long before you showed up here.

    It was all up long enough to destroy any credibility of this website.

  63. #63 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 3:23 pm

    You are wrong about more than me Rico, and yes it is all about my amusement. You will have far worse than me to slog through in order to convince people of what you believe. Just a training tool Rico. Embrace it. How else do you imagine public opinion being formed and then transmuted into policy?

    Shane that is you that gets to smell their own farts without guilt.

  64. #64 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 3:31 pm

    You can all dislike what I write, and me personally, I give you permission.

    In that vein who else to make some effort to keep this ridiculously flaming progressive wayward arrow somewhere within the realm of the real atmosphere?

  65. #65 by Glenn Hoefer on November 25, 2009 - 3:36 pm

    Here you are Shane, read it and weep. I didn;t make it up. Someone else did, that has to be it, it isn’t true.

    I love the interwebs. Need it up here, it’s is raining like it always does.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html

  66. #66 by Ken on November 26, 2009 - 5:43 pm

    New Zealand is now being rocked by Climategate. A leading warmist scientist has been caught cooking the books to show warming where there is none.

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx

    It looks like the global warming hoax may be coming down like a house of cards.

    It may be time for warmers to find a new religion.

  67. #67 by cav on November 26, 2009 - 10:35 pm

    While I have not been reading the nitty-gritty of the email ‘hoax’ problem of which Ken writes with such fervency, I do think it’s unfair to say the climate warming proponents were merely conspirators, no better than Bush and Cheney. The science, while self-correcting, is at times suggestive of consequences that are better addressed before the ramifications are insurmountable – suppose there were some threshold past which there’d be no returning.

    Seems to me that that was more the case than that some big scientists had nothing better to do than to conspire to sell cap’n trade chits.

    Now If we could again address the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, I’d be much relieved.

  68. #68 by Ken on November 27, 2009 - 3:55 am

    These emails have validated what I and other skeptics have said all along that the global warming “consensus” has been engineered. In the emails the scientists talk about blackballing scientific journals that print articles contrary to their theories as well as keeping only sympathetic scientists in the peer review process.

    In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

    The truth is if there is a consensus at all is because scientists have been browbeaten and intimidated into submission. and these emails show how the warmers did it.

    There needs to be a complete audit on the science behind global warming. Instead of scientists circling the wagons, which is what they are doing now, they need some soul searching to root out the corruption that has crept in to the system. Otherwise they are headed for a disaster of confidence that science may never recover.

    • #69 by Glenden Brown on November 27, 2009 - 7:18 am

      Actually Ken, no these emails have not validated what skeptics have been saying all along. There is no conspiracy, George Soros isn’t involved, the communist-vegetarian-socialist-scientific cabal doesn’t exist. What you’re doing is nothing more than a rhetorical technique designed to distract the discussion – you’ve focused on a few outrageous things said by people (and people often say outrageous things when they’re frustrated with dumbassery like the people who deny global warming engage in on a regular basis) and ignored the fact that nothing in these emails actually calls into question the actual scientific data. What you’re doing is exactly what creationists do all the time; scientists argue and debate about the exact mechanisms by which evolution occurs so creationists claim that that means that evolution didn’t happen and doesn’t happen. LIke the rest of the rightwing hacks, you’ve latched onto this particular form of denialism because then you don’t have to make any changes in your life and you can comfortably pretend that all is right the world and nothing we do could possible matter at all.

      In the meantime, if you’d be so kind as to tell the polar icecaps they can stop melting.

  69. #70 by Cliff Lyon on November 27, 2009 - 8:31 am

    Ken. You can’t be a climate skeptic because you are not a scientist. You have less bona fides to doubt the science than I have to doubt the BOM is true.

    But science and religion are not the same. One can your life, the other, only your soul. I would focus on the latter.

  70. #71 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 9:35 am

    Ken:

    You are quickly catching up to Glenn Hoefer with your rambling pointless rhetoric, which appears in many respects as trolling for responses rather than supporting rational debate.

    As stated previously, when you apply the same standards and analysis to the BushCo run-up to the Iraq war as you do to global warming, then their might, at that point, be at least a scintilla of genuineness in your ramblings worthy of response.

    Until that time, however, you prove your self nothing more than a Palinesq mouthpiece – all volume and no substance.

  71. #72 by Glenn Hofer on November 27, 2009 - 10:47 am

    This is good, climate scientists get busted cooking the books, red handed, and Ken is the person that progressives look to for the whipping. Then the “It’s Bush’s fault. Priceless!! There is zero rational debate going on about climate change.

    Don’t worry Ken, you will have the last laugh.

    This won’t go away, the global warming cooking the books crisis is only just warming up!

    Let the caps melt, or not, wouldn’t be the first time on planet Earth. Nothing we are going to do about it, because we don’t have the power. We barely have the power available to serve our own needs right now. What happened to alternatives?Where is all the green for that?

    This is going to be the running joke until 2012, when we replace the fraud.

    There he is now hiding with Oprah. Lord knows her skirt is big enough to hide under.

    Jim as side note. The planet has experienced warming on a far greater scale, and carbon concentrations far higher than today in it’s past, and life continued. This mass warming(by contributing greenhouse effect) resulted in the biggest forests, largest animals, and greatest biomass the Earth has ever seen. It is where all the carbon in the form of coal came from we scrape up today. Just doing our part to balance the system by burning it away seemingly. I have every expectation that humans will adapt to whatever comes their way. May not be pretty, but the plans are already made.

    Here is the ultimate in survival, DUMBS. Once man realized that he could be wiped off the planet by others, he then realized that Earth changes in the record would have destroyed man if they had occurred if we were around.

    Deep underground military bases have it all. Grow food, store food, years and years worth of parts and diesel for generators, the whole bit. Makes the Mormon plan look like a back yard set up. The US taxpayer has paid for it all. In an Earth crisis, an nuclear powered aircraft carrier could be of some use. Ever wonder where all the lost trillions are? Some of it is down a hole my boy!

  72. #73 by Ken on November 27, 2009 - 11:09 am

    I can see that many oneutah readers are in deep denial over these emails. You do not realize the domino effect this has set in motion. Warmer scientists are scattering like cock roaches in a newly lit kitchen. For the first time it is the warmers who are on the defensive and it is they who will now be required to justify their findings with real facts.

    The microscope is now on them. A storm of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are now flying in both the US and Britain. Those who have previously filed FOI requests but have been rebuffed are now pursuing them with new vigor and this time any cover-ups will be shouted from the rooftops. Calls for top warmer scientist’s resignations are now at a fever pitch and it is only a matter of time when heads roll.

    Any scientist that has accepted federal funding and cooked the books will be subject to criminal prosecution. This is a game changer. The dominos are falling.

  73. #74 by Becky Stauffer on November 27, 2009 - 11:15 am

    Ken,

    What world do you live in? Domino effect? It’s just that very hysteria that got us into Viet Nam. Your rhetoric destroys your credibility.

  74. #75 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 11:15 am

    Ken:

    Again, I ask. Where were you when equally outrageous incidents occurred during the run up to the Iraq war? Joe Wilson uncovered a pile of lies and misinformation re purported connections to Saddam, yet folks like you looked the other way and ignored the obvious. You are either a glaring hypocrite (which I suspect is the case), or a fast learner, now ready to state unequivocally that you were hoodwinked by BushCo. Which is it?

  75. #76 by glenn on November 27, 2009 - 11:43 am

    More denial, more “it’s Bush”. We are talking about scientific fraud here from the data source producers, not Bush. C’mon, you can hate yourselves for allowing Bush for 8 years, Ken has been used enough. If what you believe concerning his theft of democracy was true, we can all stand as cowards for not doing a single, solitary thing for 8 years other than let Bush walk ten feet tall all over your junk.

    I really cannot remember any war I have not studied in depth that did not begin with a panoply of lies and distortions and that irrespective of any ideology, political party, creed, color, or religion. Just for you Jim. Where have you been? As a Ph.d “scientist” engineer, yourself you must be just a little disturbed about what is coming out, yes?

    Why would this situation be any different than say Phizer paying for A happy study about the efficacy of its new drug? If believing that the research must be made to support a politically approved “fact”, is there any surprise that this is coming out?

    Just like study after study on all manner of things that make a buck seemingly always comes out as having no harm, or as safe as mothers milk(which can be tainted by environmental toxins from your own body ya know).

    Circle the wagons “warmers” because if you do, it will be all the easier to burn them all down, that way we can all move on.

  76. #77 by Ken on November 27, 2009 - 12:01 pm

    James

    The same could be said about you. Why are you now excusing the lies of so called scientists but outraged by Bush pronouncements leading up to the gulf war? Sounds like selective indignation on your part. At least on my part I have the power of hind site.

    Global warming lies will have far more reaching impact on every man woman and child on the planet than any war ever has. Our way of life, our freedom, and even the Constitution itself is in jeopardy over global warming hysteronics. The Global warming fascists have their mind on extreme restrictions on all aspects of human activity. It is slavery they are selling not saving the planet.

    Like I have said many times global warming was embraced by the left so heartily because it fits so well in their world view. Western democracies and capitalism are evil and have caused all the worlds problems, and now they are destroying the planet and must be stopped. Global warming seemed to be the ultimate catalyst in bringing down the West and replacing it with the great socialist utopia the left has always dreamed of. Now it is in jeopardy and the left is in panic mode.

    Let the left panic while we keep our freedom.

  77. #78 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 12:07 pm

    Glenn H.

    As a scientist, I am concerned about the e-mails. However, I also appreciate the fact that a couple of rogue scientists do not topple the work done by thousands of other scientists; notwithstanding, however, the fact that folks like you and Ken now have a floor to denigrate the work of countless others because of the acts of a few.

    Hmmm. In a sense, you are arguing that all absent fathers should be put out to pasture and denied access to their children because of the bad acts of a few fathers who refuse to pay child support. See what I mean, there, bud? Your argument is horseshit!

  78. #79 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 12:17 pm

    Ken:

    Not so fast, my friend. As stated in my comment above, as a scientist, I am deeply disturbed by the actions taken by these individuals. But, I am not about to toss out the extensive body of research and analysis conducted by credentialed scientists from around the world and carried out at prestigious universities and institutes as a result of the misguided efforts of a few.

    Further, while I appreciate your hindsight analysis of the run up to war in Iraq, let’s not lose sight of the fact that Joe Wilson was but one of many, many folks who – in positions to know – made powerful and well-supported arguments of the lack of a threat posed by Saddam.

  79. #80 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 12:20 pm

    Glenn

    These are not rogue scientists. They are Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann of the Global Warming “Hockeystick” fame among others. These scientists are the ones the IPCC refer to and by extension who the EPA refers to. They are the Grand Pubahs in the global warming field. Algore referred to their work in both his book “Earth in the Balance, and his propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth. Prior to these emails their words were what most other warmist scientists used as their primary sources. This is what makes this scandal so huge.

    For warmers these emails are the ultimate in an inconvenient truth.

  80. #81 by shane on November 27, 2009 - 12:37 pm

    Prior to these emails their words were what most other warmist scientists used as their primary sources

    This may explain some of the confusion.

    No. They didn’t. Most scientists refer to reality as their primary source. Perhaps that is why you don’t understand?

  81. #82 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 12:46 pm

    Shane

    Your last statement was the rhetorical equivalent to the refutation, ”no it ain’t”.

  82. #83 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 12:51 pm

    Ken:

    If Joseph Smith is someday confirmed a fraud, are you going to walk away from the Mormon Church?

  83. #84 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 1:12 pm

    After 150 years + Joseph Smith has not been proven a fraud. Global Warming hasn’t made it 25 years. Truth always withstands the test of time.

  84. #85 by Becky Stauffer on November 27, 2009 - 2:46 pm

    Ken,

    Truth? To whose satisfaction has Joseph Smith not been shown to be a fraud?

    Well for starters, probably not all those people in the 1800’s who accepted Mormon sham currency printed by the Mormon “anti-bank”; currency that was supposed to be backed by gold and silver and turned out to be worthless. He was in trouble in Missouri for more than the things they taught us in seminary class.

    Then there’s the whole story about why Smith was jailed (for burning down a printing press owned by a man who printed accusations that his wife was seduced by Smith to become a plural wife in his stable.)

    And what about the scripture bloopers like the ancient documents in the Pearl of Great Price that, when translated later by knowledgable linquists, didn’t have the meaning attributed by Smith.

    And how about the article of faith that unequivocally says “We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” And yet the book has undergone (and continues to this day to undergo) numerous substantive changes. Like native Americans becoming “white and delightsome”.

    And what about DNA evidence that shows Native Americans did not descend from middle-eastern people.

    And on and on.

    There’s a reason why the church says members should avoid reading criticisms of the church. It could shake your faith.

  85. #86 by cav on November 27, 2009 - 3:25 pm

    All the proof required was readily available more than 150 years ago.

    Why extend the statute of limitations when the determination is long since done.

    It’s an investment club, that frowns on caffine and non-procreative orgasms.

  86. #87 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 4:18 pm

    Hmm. I am still trying to understand why Ken refuses to answer such an easy question. The response is a simple yes or no; not much more difficult than the one he tries to elicit here re global warming in light of the e-mails.

  87. #88 by Becky Stauffer on November 27, 2009 - 5:04 pm

    It’s interesting that Ken offered the perfect analogy to the global warming debate. You just have to believe something with all your might for no other reason than that you want to believe, and don’t let the facts get in the way.

  88. #89 by Ken on November 27, 2009 - 6:10 pm

    Another domino falls. University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientist Mike Hulme admits the UN IPCC is about politics, not science.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018192/climategate-the-ipcc-is-over-says-uea-climate-scientist/

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/

    As the warmers iron grip loosens more scientists will come out in the open with their reservations. It’s unraveling is happening in break neck speed. Warmers days are numbered and we will all be better for it.

    This is going to be topic #1 in Coppenhagen and will most likely derail it. GOOD!

    Becky

    It is the scientists that wanted to believe mankind was causing the warming that they let it taint their reasoning. They only looked at “facts” that supported their, and their funders, pre-conceived notions and began a campaign of intimidation to silence opposing view-points. These emails prove this was their intention.

  89. #90 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 6:28 pm

    Ken:

    The same can be said about the “truth” of the Book of Mormon and the entire Mormon faith. I am not attacking your church; just pointing out that you, yourself, are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse your 1U colleagues of!

  90. #91 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 6:50 pm

    James

    One big difference is that religion is not about facts and proof it is about faith. Science on the other hand is about hard cold facts.

    The problem with global warming is it has taken on all the trappings of religion and that is very dangerous. Nothing else compares in science with global warming. Is there any other discipline in science that demands total fealty? Is there any other that seeks to silence all opposing viewpoints? Is there any other that proponents refuse to debate because they claim the debate is over? Evolution comes close but not anywhere near the fever pitch of global warming.

    Science is bastardized when the proponents refuse to look at all angles. A scientific theory is strengthened when it is subjected to the rigors of opposing viewpoints. Einstein’s theories where vigorously and hotly debated and it took several decades to confirm them. Global Warming has not been given the chance to be thoroughly debated and it is weakened it as a result.

    If global warming theories were correct the proponents would have no fear of opposing viewpoints but as the emails tell us even they knew there were giant holes in their theories but instead of seeking to fill the holes they just denied they were there and attacked those that pointed them out.

  91. #92 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 6:58 pm

    One other name that is implicated in Climategate is none other than Obama’s Science Czar John “sterilents in our drinking water” Holdren.

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183

    Funny how we must mainly go to the foreign press for news on Climategate.

  92. #93 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 7:23 pm

    There is so much coming out about Climategate it is hard to keep up. This is big people. REALLY BIG!

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/

  93. #94 by glenn on November 27, 2009 - 8:31 pm

    What a beating. Ugly.

  94. #95 by Ken on November 27, 2009 - 10:02 pm

    Glen

    It is hard time to be a warmer. Almost feel sorry for em. NOT! (c8;

  95. #96 by James Farmer on November 27, 2009 - 10:07 pm

    Ken:

    I agree that science and religion are completely different animals – at least as we understand them today, for the most part; albeit politics plays a large part in both (the Utah legislature comes to mind, for example). My point is, however, the tactics for furthering or denying any particular viewpoint are quite similar.

    Here is an example. Leaders of the Mormon church have control over a large number of documents that they will never make public – Fawn Brody’s work assures us of that (the church will not be burned twice in this regard). The reason those documents will not be made public is because they cut against the desired picture of the religion – the faithful might question the foundations of the church, so best the docs be kept secret.

    As a scientist, I have never denied the existence of evidence that points against man being a major contributor to GW. Instead, I maintain there is far more compelling evidence that points to the opposite conclusion.

    In any event, I am far from willing to permit my scientific judgment be swayed by the questionable actions of a few scientists, just as you are not about to be swayed by the writings of notable and credentialed scholars who think the underpinnings of the LDS Church are fraudulent.

    The similarities in arguing viewpoints between science and religion are far more powerful and prevalent than you suggest above.

  96. #98 by Ken Bingham on November 27, 2009 - 10:35 pm

    World media is absolutely abuzz about Climategate while ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, etc practically ignore or downplay.

    Why on Earth do they insist on continually being scooped by Fox News and bloggers? This will only damage these media outlets even further.

  97. #99 by glenn on November 28, 2009 - 4:16 am

    Fawn Brodie. Read the book? Bush’s fault, to be sure.

    “As a scientist, I have never denied the existence of evidence that points against man being a major contributor to GW. Instead, I maintain there is far more compelling evidence that points to the opposite conclusion”.

    GW means Bush right James? As your I reference your blog page, and see that your focus on Bush is topic heavy http://www.wavesoffear.com/

    Only have to be dragged kicking and screaming as progressive ideology gets in the way of a good hot fire.

    Be the first anyone knew about it here James you being a warming denier. I figured you assumed global warming was Bush’s fault from cooking too much bacon.

    Back peddle squirm, and the scientists involved are “the” scientists, those with the gravitas, though in this case we can now say levitas, as in heavyweights in what is now a scientific lightweight’s fraudulent cause.

    Allow Ken his moment of gloating over the scene, cuz it is so good.

    You are not a scientist James.

  98. #100 by glenn on November 28, 2009 - 4:22 am

    This is a TKO of the extremely bloody kind. I fully expect the reeling “warmer” combatants to claim the fight should not be stopped, that they are in control of their faculties (not at some universities it would seem) and that the blow that knocked some sense into them was a lucky punch.

  99. #101 by Glenn Hoefer aka Tim Friedmann on November 28, 2009 - 5:34 am

    There have been quite a few discussions on sea level here, so I felt that this man’s input would be revealing in light of the fact that “warmer” data and conclusions have been found to be fraudulent.

    Dr. Morner should be careful, the climate mafia could cause him trouble. This is “the” man on sea level rise in recent history. He is credentialed for all that is worth.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

  100. #102 by glenn on November 28, 2009 - 5:51 am

    More brutality from the “the” man on the study of sea level rise. This is a straight choke out victory for Morner. It has all been a shakedown. Shane, you argue with him about recent sea level rises.

    …and finally, a final word from the master of sea level observations Dr. Morner. He is a scientist. He claims there isn’t any, and he is “the” man. Most study, most credentials, for whatever that matters.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

  101. #103 by cav on November 28, 2009 - 6:58 am

    Not that there’s anything particularly moving about the Copenhagen Climate Summit, but I do have to wonder about the timing of this present exposition.

    And what if ALL of everything was just a big lie? Rationality will provide the billions of us with exactly what kind of structure?

    Neither will faith evaporate, because we just don’t know!

    So keep hammering Ken, the escape hatch is for your mind as well.

  102. #104 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 7:43 am

    Ken, You have still not prointed us to a single ‘smoking gun’ email. I read your links. None of them do either.

    All the material youve pointed to so far, are characterizations of the media stories about the hacked e-mails, or, as in the UK Telegraph Dinglepole article is simply another out of context quote that has nothing to do with science, but rather speculation about tribalism (my favorite theme).

  103. #105 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 8:17 am

    Glenn,

    I read the article about Nils-Axel Morner and was unsurprised to discover that ice melt was the premise for the cause of rising oceans that Morner ‘supposedly’ disputes.which is odd because the most recent rise in ocean levels, as I understand from the scientific community, is caused NOT by melting, but rather by ocean warming (H2O expands when heated).

    This of course also explains why the rise is being seen in certain places and not overall.

    You might also check out http://www.exxonsecrets.org to review Dr. Morner’s relationship to BIG OIL.

  104. #106 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 9:09 am

    A video about the emails and an inconvenient reality for the deniers, and other anti-science conspiracy theorists…

  105. #107 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 10:24 am

    Glenn:

    WTF are you talking about? You’re apparently back to looking for your keys under the inconveniently located streetlamp again. For god sakes, man, if you have nothing of substance to contribute, then shut your pie-hole. You just make yourself look like an idiot.

  106. #108 by glenn on November 28, 2009 - 12:10 pm

    the man knows all about why sea level rises, and he says it isn’t so look the fool and continue to think it is.

    Attacking me will not solve the fraud James.

    By their own fraudulent claims the IPCC says that we will see a 17 inch rise by end of century, deal with it. We will have years now to see where the sea level is going.

    Keep supporting the cause, it will uh make you look a bit..foolish.

    This is just getting started this fraud investigation. It is going to go very badly in the places hardest sold. We will come around when no one commits of abides to squat.

    Al Gore has a relationship to big oil. his Daddy owned a oil company. Do you really believe this crap James? I have read through both sides thoroughly and now the gig is up for the APW crowd. They got found out.

    Cav the timing is incidental, though timely, this is not the first time the APW crowd has been caught cooking data.

  107. #109 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 12:35 pm

    glenn hoefer states:

    I have read through both sides thoroughly and now the gig is up for the APW crowd.

    Hmm. We should be so fortunate to have you around as the final arbiter. Oh, but then again, you have no degree or background in science; you have no background in numerical analysis; you have no background in statistics; you have no background in mathematics; you have no background in chemistry; and you have no background, whatsoever, not even a scintilla of experience, in climate modeling. Hmmmm. Ok, glenn, what ever you say.

  108. #110 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 12:53 pm

    Yeah, but Glenn does have experience going on boat rides in the ocean.

  109. #111 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 1:35 pm

    Yup. And not to mention substantial experience freeloading.

  110. #112 by glenn on November 28, 2009 - 3:05 pm

    You are right on one point, fabricating data is not my forte. It takes credentials to be taken seriously doing criminal activity like that.

    I’m not the final arbiter, the reality will be what it becomes, and that will decide the truth. We are to let her feather boys, that is what is going to happen.

    It hurts doesn’t guys being duped? You really are as blunt as the method of this scandal.

    As much as you may not know it, spending ones time completely in an environ where climate and weather is not only a diversion, but key to your survival, you might be surprised what a scientifically literate person can conclude and observe given enough time. You two sure as s*it don’t know anything about weather modeling, that is certain.

    If only credentials were essential for being right, or observant of the obvious. How on Earth did we arrive here before sheepskins? You have to wonder.

    “And not to mention substantial experience freeloading”.

    Maybe Jim, but never on your dime, or effort. In fact, I cannot recall how many times I have fed your lazy ass. Is it sauce yet James?

  111. #113 by Ken on November 28, 2009 - 3:25 pm

    Cliff

    I watched your video of “therealnews”. For one thing the quality is extremely amateurish and the “reporter” reminds me of a guy in an infomercial feigning interest in the story. In fact it almost seems like the “reporter” and the professor are disconnected somehow. I would even hazard a guess that they are not really even talking to each other. At least not in real time.

    I checked out this prof Michael Brklacich and he has very few credentials besides selling a couple of books on climate change. None of them scholarly by the way. He is a professor of geology for crying out loud. Cliff I’m sure you have no problem consulting a proctologist on brain surgery? But then again.

    The professor is more of an activist than a scientist.

    Here is the Barnes and Noble synopsis of his book Communicating Global Change Science to Society: An Assessment and Case Studies

    Communicating Global Change Science to Society examines the growing number of instances in which governments and scientists have engaged in research projects in which the goal is to inform policy decisions. It assesses these experiences and suggests their implications for future collaborations.

    He is an advocate of using science to influence government decision making ie. social engineering.

    In other words this entire “news” clip is nothing more than a very badly produced propaganda piece.

  112. #114 by Glenn Hoefer on November 28, 2009 - 3:33 pm

    Shocked! Shocked, I say. Does he have credentials Ken? This is why he is right, and you despite any insight, are wrong. Don’t you get it? Until you are accepted by the rules of the fraud, you cannot participate, let alone benefit.

    Reminds me of any style of mob, mafia, gangland crap. Just pointier heads and a sheepskin dildo to massage the public.

  113. #115 by shane on November 28, 2009 - 4:22 pm

    Glenn, i finally figured it out. You remind me of someone i have had some discussions with lately. I spend so much time and energy trying to figure out his point through all the self contradictions and ignorance that by the time you actually figure out where he is going with the discussion, you have no energy left to point why his point is wrong.

    That seems to be the only thing going on in your discussions. First the oceans rise for all of time, then they aren’t rising at all, then we are all bad because we don’t even do anything to protect the environment, then if we do it turns out we are just self congratulatory.

    …you don’t actually have a point do you? You just think that if you shotgun as many arguments as you can at everything everyone says that you can deny reality.

    Since you and Ken are so sure this is the beginning of the end though, I am happy to drop this in the calendar. We can check back in say, 2 years? I am sure there will be a huge change in the climate debate by then based on these emails, right?

  114. #116 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 4:30 pm

    Ken, I wouldn’t have guessed you judge your news reporting on production values. So be it. have you ever watched the BYU news show?

    As for the idea of using science to inform policy…would you prefer we use scripture?

    Lastly, nice shot offering up the ‘social engineering’ part.

    Can you think of any major Church supported Utah think tanks implicitly involved in social engineering?

    Hint: initials are SI.

  115. #117 by James Farmer on November 28, 2009 - 4:40 pm

    Ha! Cliff, for get the BYU news shows. A more apt comparison with reporting on production values would be General Conference and CEW reruns!

  116. #118 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 28, 2009 - 4:53 pm

    Ya think Shane? After all this time?

    Take a nap. You’ll be alright.

  117. #119 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 28, 2009 - 4:57 pm

    “That seems to be the only thing going on in your discussions. First the oceans rise for all of time, Really they begin rising 13k years ago, the stabilize. For no currently scientifically explainable reason) then they aren’t rising at all(yes, your point?) , then we are all bad because we don’t even do anything to protect the environment, then if we do it turns out we are just self congratulatory.

    You seem to be getting the gist of it now Shane. Good.

  118. #120 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 28, 2009 - 5:06 pm

    There will be a very great change since the revelation of this fraud Shane.

    Every step of the way now will be met with doubt and the requisite solid proof by completely transparent scientific endeavors to discover the truth within the phenomena.

    The world will now err on the other side of the sky is not necessarily falling. I so much love the law of unintended consequence. The “warmers” over reached, politically and were done in scientifically. Can’t control truth forever. It guides the human hand in all we do this dynamic between lies and truth.

    Expecting the usual from dictates of science in relation to power as has generally been exhibited throughout the years of human history, this recent dust up is no surprise. Politics has driven this fraud, and in that it had no other way to die.

  119. #121 by Cliff Lyon on November 28, 2009 - 5:18 pm

    Shane,

    Let me save you some energy. Glenn’s incoherent rambling may resemble others, but stops there.

    He is truly special. Where Glenn is like no other can be seen only in his presence. In person, Glenn cannot stop talking. Thats why he’s a loner. He some some sort of pathology that prevents him from listening to anyone else. As a result, his communication skills have been severely retarded.

    He has never enjoyed the benefit the rest of us have, of learning to engage intellectually with others through the normal course of life.

    I think he has some sort of non-stop dialog going on in his head that prevents external inputs.

  120. #122 by Glenn Hoefer aka Anthony Tiles on November 28, 2009 - 5:38 pm

    Interesting theory, have any of your own thoughts concerning your proclivity to criminality? Or that of James or the host you sport for?

    Ad Hominem the end of the line for any topic.

    I have learned plenty, you dear Cliff have been a remarkable teacher without knowing. Do not mistake speaking for not seeing what is happening. Develop it, your adversaries will never know that you are all over them despite any apparent distraction. Cheers, your move chess boy, and you suck at it.

    I have heard this so many times from the like of yourself, it only need be heard once for complete rejection. For the rest of time safely inured from the rambling lies with nothing but an agenda.

    I do not have one of those, unlike your yourself Cliff.

    Enjoy the unmasking, it will be relevatory.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: