Time will tell wont it? :winkwink:

50 bullshit global conspiracies....

There's plenty of proof. It was all being denied and controlled by these people. The scientists disproving it all were losing their jobs getting their lives ruined for going against what these people were saying. These emails prove that they were doing all of this. They admit that they are real emails and documents showing their manipulation, lies, fraud, conspiracy, treason, scams, etc. But because the majority trusted in and believed that these people were actually doing things to "save them" from this BS rather than creating a entirely new system of tax and government where one of the very founding elements of all life on earth would be taxed. Literally the air you breathe would be taxed. They could use this to control anyone and anything they wanted.

Lol yep, time will tell. I'm ok with that. I dont care if someone drives an SUV over a spotted owl or snail darter, I'll just choose not to do it myself. No biggy.

Here ... fixed !

Top experts at NASA arent different from experts at the Climate Research Unit.... It's agenda driven, it's corrupt, if you don't want to play ball you don't get in... So those guys are defending themselves..

I read the treaty that is going to be debated in Copenhagen. It provides a governing body (those are the words used) to which all countries are bound regarding environmental policy. Furthermore, it provides for a system of redistributing wealth by way of a "climate debt" so that developed nations will pay undeveloped nations for past, present and future energy consumption.

When you combine that with this new information that looks like the mainstream opinion on global warming has been carefully crafted and dissenting opinions have been suppressed and the catalyst for this movement is a former VP of the US who stands to gain BILLIONS from the green movement you have to admit that while you may not be able to see the fire just yet there is some smoke.

So you know the FACT that CO2 levels affects the earth's temperature as determined by scientists computing data taken from ice samples tracing back 70,000 years. I believe that as well.

Doesn't their data show a dramatic rise in CO2 levels in the past 100 years compared to the 70,000 years before that. Can you see all the things man has introduced in the last 100 years that emit CO2 into the atmosphere like cars and factories and cow farts and furthering the balance by things like deforestation. None of which existed the 70,000 years before that.

Simply put, the earth progressed for millions of years and went through it's cycle of changes. In the last 100 years mankind became industrialized and in doing so introduced things to the environment that has a very good chance of destroying it.

If we built enough buildings that did nothing but pump CO2 into the atmosphere I'm sure that ALL scientists would agree that would soon make the planet uninhabitable. There are things all around us now that emit CO2. The question is just how much can we get away with. Hopefully credible science will find the answer in time.

My gripe is some people just pass this off as being cyclical.

well said justinsain , good to see a little intelligence in this thread

Thanks, I was beginning to feel like the guy in your avatar :winkwink:

All bullshit. CO2 makes for warmer temperatures and said warmer temperatures will create more abundant life! They don't want more abundant life they want less life that's why they have been spraying chemicals out of airplanes for years blocking the sun and changing the weather! They want you dead so they can inhabit the Earth and not you!

Inhofe to call for hearing into CRU, U.N. climate change research

http://www.infowars.com/inhofe-to-ca...ange-research/

I think some rich russian oil men got tired of the bullshit and hired some agents to do the dirty work. Hacking is not ok, but at least they found what they were looking for.

oh fuck this place is awesome :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Let me guess. You don't want to believe in the spraying of chemicals over your head and that by doing so they are causing death and destruction?

BEIJING -- Heavy snowfall in northern China is testing the country's disaster preparedness and prompting fresh questions about Beijing's efforts to alter its weather.

A massive blizzard over the past week has dumped some of the heaviest snow in five decades on China's usually arid north, clogging highways and collapsing buildings in seven provinces. The storm, which began Monday, had caused at least $650 million in damage as of Friday afternoon and killed more than 40 people in traffic accidents or building collapses triggered by the snow and ice, the government said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125814710015847539.html

BEIJING ? Unusually early snow storms in northern China have claimed 38 lives in weather-related incidents and caused more than half a billion dollars in damage, the Civil Affairs Ministry said Friday.

Nineteen of the deaths resulted from traffic accidents related to the storms that began on Nov. 9, the ministry said in a news release posted on its Web site.

The snowfall is the heaviest in the area since records began being taken following the establishment of the communist state in 1949, the ministry said. It estimated economic losses from the storm at 3.5 billion yuan (US$513 million).

More than 4.7 million people have been affected by the storms, which have caused the collapse of more than 7,000 buildings, damaged 297,000 acres (120,000 hectares) of crops, and forced the evacuation of 158,000 people, the ministry said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...SdvlY2vWJ-s63g

All a part of the fraud. The have been manipulating weather in the US, Canada, Australia and many other places for years.

This is what I was wondering.

url to the zip?

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U44FST89

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=XD050VKY

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171...s_(FOI2009.zip)

Even the coder was in on the scam


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/2...he-real-story/

Climate Change scam talking points leaked :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://i.imgur.com/QWoM8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/WbWdv.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ShO6T.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KaXw6.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/1OAwK.jpg

wrong, the only fact is they trend together, there isn't a scientist on earth that can prove that rising c02 causes temperatures to rise or the rising temperature causes the rise in c02.

Calling something a fact when it's not is the biggest reason why I believe and many others believe this is all hyped up to make money off cap and trade. Saying something is "undebatable" before a debate is complete even while people are debating the very issue INCLUDING scientist from around the word at the risk of being black balled from the rest of the community and the media is backwards.

Well then you are clearly an idiot because what I said IS IN FACT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. I said the 2 were fucking connected and they are. When warming occurs the CO2 levels are always higher. Which came first the chicken or the egg? But even THAT is besides the point I WAS MAKING that over 70,000 years these "TRENDS" have proven cyclical.

Saying "in connection with" does not mean CAUSED BY or the RESULT OF. And look at that nifty word I used at the end of my post that you quoted. Holy shit... there it is "TRENDS".

I tell myself every time these debates come up to save it for my science and physics boards where intelligent debate can be had.

Read my other posts in this thread or any other from the past and you will ALSO SEE that I think this Man Made Global Warming is a crock of shit.

I will also add that, aside from your inability to understand what I was saying, the post that you are quoting was not particularly ABOUT the correlation of climate warming or cooling in association with CO2 levels. It was about the cyclical climate change of Earth, whether it is cooling or warming, and that the only thing up for debate is if it is caused by man made CO2 versus a naturally occurring climate change in a natural cycle.

The remarks in that post were spawned by someone saying they were tired of hearing about the "cyclical nature" of climate change. And yes it is a proven fact that warming and cooling trends are repeating cycles on planet Earth.

its just a marketing hoax

Fraud? Hundreds of icebergs just broke from Antarctic and are now heading to New Zealand!!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123...climateiceberg


Over 100 icebergs drifting to N.Zealand: official

Mon Nov 23

SYDNEY (AFP) ? More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards New Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.

An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 450 kilometres (280 miles) northeast.

Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 200 metres (650 feet) across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.

He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.

"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 30 square kilometres (11.6 square miles) in size when it left Antarctica," Young told AFP.

"It's done a long circuit around Antarctica and now the bigger parts of it are breaking up and producing smaller ones."

He said large numbers of icebergs had not floated this close to New Zealand since 2006, when a number came within 25 kilometres of the coastline -- the first such sighting since 1931.

"They're following the same tracks now up towards New Zealand. Whether they make it up to the South Island or not is difficult to tell," Young said.

New Zealand has already issued coastal navigation warnings for the area in the Southern Ocean where the icebergs have been seen.

"It's really just a general warning for shipping in that area to be on the alert for icebergs," said Maritime New Zealand spokesman Ross Henderson.

The icebergs are smaller remnants of the giant chunks seen off Australia's Macquarie Island this month, including one estimated at two kilometres (1.2 miles) and another twice the size of Beijing's "Bird's Nest" Olympic Stadium.

Young earlier told AFP he expected to see more icebergs in the area if the Earth's temperature continues to increase.

"If the current trends in global warming were to continue I would anticipate seeing more icebergs and the large ice shelves breaking up," he said.

When icebergs last neared New Zealand in 2006, a sheep was helicoptered out to be shorn on one of the floes in a publicity stunt by the country's wool industry.

The Real Deal.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/da4ea7a071.png

1979-2009

BINGO :1orglaugh

Nah, It's just BS to misslead the Doubters, and ProClimate people Will Take the bait, propaganda :thumbsup

Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...satellite-era/

Where are the headlines? Where are the press releases? Where is all the attention?

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008?2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980?2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008?2009 melt season.

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

But such is not always the case?or rather, such is not ever the case when ice melt is pushing the other end of the record scale.

For instance, below is a collection of NASA stories highlighting record high amounts of melting (or in most cases, simply higher than normal amounts in some regions) across Greenland in each of the past 3 years, as ascertained by Marco Tedesco (the lead author of the latest report on Antarctica):

NASA Researcher Finds Days of Snow Melting on the Rise in Greenland

?In 2006, Greenland experienced more days of melting snow and at higher altitudes than average over the past 18 years, according to a new NASA-funded project using satellite observations?.?

NASA Finds Greenland Snow Melting Hit Record High in High Places

?A new NASA-supported study reports that 2007 marked an overall rise in the melting trend over the entire Greenland ice sheet and, remarkably, melting in high-altitude areas was greater than ever at 150 percent more than average. In fact, the amount of snow that has melted this year over Greenland is the equivalent of more than twice the surface size of the U.S??

Melting on the Greenland Ice Cap, 2008

?The northern fringes of Greenland?s ice sheet experienced extreme melting in 2008, according to NASA scientist Marco Tedesco and his colleagues.?

And lest you think that perhaps NASA hasn?t had any data on ice melt across Antarctica in past years, we give you this one:

NASA Researchers Find Snowmelt in Antarctica Creeping Inland

?On the world?s coldest continent of Antarctica, the landscape is so vast and varied that only satellites can fully capture the extent of changes in the snow melting across its valleys, mountains, glaciers and ice shelves. In a new NASA study, researchers [including Marco Tedesco] using 20 years of data from space-based sensors have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica?s largest ice shelf.?

But this time around, nothing, nada, zippo from NASA when their ice melt go-to guy Marco Tedesco reports that Antarctica has set a record for the lack of surface ice melt (even more interestingly coming on the heels of a near-record low ice-melt year last summer).

So, seriously, NASA, what gives? If ice melt is an important enough topic to warrant annual updates of the goings-on across Greenland, it is not important enough to elucidate the history and recent behavior across Antarctica?

(These are not meant as rhetorical questions)

Reference

Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186.

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...57-401,00.html

ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.

Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.

East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.

Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.

Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.

Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.

"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."

Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.

A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.

thnx :thumbsup