Area 51 Area 51 Forum Index FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Register Log in to check your private messages Log in
Refi

Bookmark this site!
The earf *is* flat the earf *is* flat!!!!
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Area 51 Forum Index -> Current Events
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:31 pm    Post subject: The earf *is* flat the earf *is* flat!!!! Reply with quote

This might hit some of you hard but if you really are objective you'll survive.

You may or may not have heard of this, a lot of the press is absolutely refusing to report it.

Over a thousand emails from the world's premier research facility on climate change (Hadley CRU in the UK) have been hacked and released on the net.

They expose once and for all the utter lie and hoax we know as Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Anthropogenic Global Warming

This happened last Thursday, the 19th, but much of the US mainstream press is still mute. Links are every where. Look for Hadley CRU, climategate, climate hoax, etc., etc.

Here's two:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

I named my thread like I did because the claims being made against the "scientists" is analogous to people in the middle ages suggesting the earth is round. In so many ways, this new revelation just won't do.
_________________





Last edited by aalpha on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lamiaceae
Site Administrator
Site Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Avarice defence mode activated

The media is lying to you

It's not hard to fake where an email comes from you know.

Those emails have been forged by the pro climate change contingent in an attempt to discredit the stop climate change majority.

And you're believing them! - this makes you stupid ( this is a staple of all Av posts there is a Ad hominem attack in them somewhere http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Ad_hominem )

On a more serious note, I will read this more properly when I get round tuit and be more sensible as i'm on my lunch break atm at work.
_________________
I should update my sig. What to put here for $CurrentYear ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
area51newmexico
Goddess
Goddess


Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 10598
Location: East Yorkshire, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

*ARGH is confused and does not know what to believe. Will sit on fence until the earth is destroyed either way*
_________________
Helen, the Administratrix of www.area51newmexico.com

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This one is a bit telling. I certainly don't have the will nor the inclination to read 1075 emails, ha! I do well with my daily 6 or 8.

I do hope someone will read them and then repost them with the most damning sentences and phrases marked for easy scanning.

This is a fairly short read. OH!! has anyone seen or heard the ambulance chasing media trying to hunt down Al Gore to get his opinion of all this?? Nooooo, I din't think soooooo.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lamiaceae
Site Administrator
Site Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, once in a blue moon time again. I'm going to try to be sensible on A51 and hand over being a tit to Av.



When I had just started school, I remember playing in the snow, throwing snowballs at each other, if we got a large amount of snow we got sent home.

Other things that used to happen was that during the winter I had to trapse off in the morning to catch the bus to school and if it didn't turn up we left the bus stop to go back home, w00t! - day off school.

One day where I was just about to leave for home the bus turned up, though got stuck going up a hill, so when the driver went to get help, I legged it back home.

I had a great day sledging instead.

As I got older, the story was the same through out the years, if it snowed I could rely on either not going to school, or going home early.

Another time me and dad made a snowman in our front garden, old coffee pot lids for eyes, stones for a mouth, and branches for arms, over night some horrible people kicked it down, so we only made them in the back garden since then.

Great days, we don't get snow like that anymore.

First hand evidence you know.

If the world isn't getting any warmer, and this is all just a big con,
then why is the previous example not happening anymore ?

Why are ice shelves breaking off and going for a jolly into warmer waters when surely, they should stay frozen and firmly attached to the antartic/artic ( ??? ) ice shelf that they were part of? (like they have been for the past thousands of years?)

We get reports that perfectly preserved wooly mammoth's have been found in what used to be permafrost, and as the mammoth has been extinct for thousands of years you'd have to ask why hadn't that ice melted and dumped the mammoth beneath the waves never to be seen again before it was feasted on by marine life ?

Oh sorry, that's a con as well. Ok, how do we know that mammoth's existed in the first place? do you think that people sat around and thought, I know lets make up an animal that lived years ago, and we've just found one in the ice and then give it up to biologists to study for them to say 'yeah this is fake but we're in on this aswell'?

Are you telling me that all those video's and photo's i've been shown are photoshopped pictures and someone with Windows Movie Maker is making these films in their bathroom ?

That's an awful lot of people all in on this, and no one said 'looks shooped to me, I can tell by the pixels and having seen a lot of 'shops in my time' ?

The video editing and CGI effects are amazing, i'm sure Light and Magic have been doing very well out of this, who have obviously been keeping quiet about it as well as money is just rolling in for them. None of the thousands of staff who would know about this constant demand for CGI effects talked either, even after Gemma Hunter was made redundant and as she felt no remorse for her previous employer and was very upset went to a newspaper to tell of the grand conspiracy at Light And Magic.

Do you think that maybe it could be a bit of both?

We seem to have 1 climate change ( why is it called climate change and not global warming anymore ? ) and 1 anti climate change?

what if they are both right? - nature is doing one bit, and we're doing the other bit? - putting pollution into the atmosphere can't be good from either point of view, no matter which camp you're in. So can we work towards a common goal and not sit there bickering at each other ?

Yes, a very long time ago the earth was a very inhospitable place to be indeed. But over time the earth cooled, and we had an ice age ( Oh scrat!, Sid the Sloth etc )

That was nature, that took millions of years. We know that forests take carbon dioxide and convert it into oxygen through photosynthesis ( unless I wasn't listening in science at school ) so let's chop them down, to increase the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Coal and oil are perhaps huge carbon sinks, sequested away beneath the surface, we've perhaps sped up what would take thousands or millions of years to be difused back out into the atmosphere by pulling it up and burning it.

You have to dismiss greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane or whatever ) as not influencing global temperature at all to say that this isn't humans affecting their climate around them.

What's the aim of this anyway? telling us to stop looking into renewable energy because oil, coal and gas wont run out really? We should stop looking into 'cleaner' renewable energy even though it's better for the enviroment?

Or are all those people who were born a few years before 1952 telling lies when they remember the great smog of 1952?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_1952

No it wasn't pollution of course! silly me, it was a Government conspiracy using an inflatable bouncy castle air blower over the previous night to put all that smoke into the air to make people believe.


Why have they posted just ***excerpts*** of emails etc?

The word 'trick' could relate to well, anything.
I've used various 'tricks' in the past to do various things, Lifehacker is full of them.

I have not seen enough evidence yet myself ( though i've not been home much recently to explore fully the links presented ) to believe this yet.

aalpha, you 'worry' me. Your post just previous to this one asks the same 'please print the most damning excerpts', let me try to explain. At work I keep something called 'the quotationary' it's when anyone says anything that could be taken out of context I write it in.

Couple of my favourites are :-

1) My hand feels funny after having a go on Ed's squishy thing
2) It won't stay in if it's not stiff
3) I will be happy with 6 inches

The first one is refering to a stress reliever toy, the second is a comment on why a LCD monitor wouldn't fit easily into it's stand. The 3rd one is Kirsty explaining how high she would like her monitor to be raised by a monitor stand.

You sound like you've already made your mind up, you don't need to look for evidence aalpha, you've made your decision already.

A few out of context e-mail quotes don't make a counter argument against established peer reviewed scientific data gathered over the past few years, otherwise you may as well create a few emails that says there is no link between smoking and lung cancer and all of a sudden lung cancer is wiped from the face of the earth.







Oh yeah, because it makes the point as well... ...And I like The Daily Mash.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-emails-stop-glaciers-from-melting-200911252254/
_________________
I should update my sig. What to put here for $CurrentYear ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I fell asleep in my chair so I'll read your entire post later. but to answer one of you early points - temperature zones shift.

You may not get days off from deep snow but other places are seeing record early snows in record amounts.

Don't just read my posts. Follow the story and read the quotes from the emails. These people communicated with each other not in terms of what to do about warming.

They wrote to each other about how to hide the decline in temp world wide, how to hide true data from Freedom of Information laws, etc.

Every year polar ice melts. It's normal for some of it to melt. Even if it all melts it doesn't mean the entire planet is getting warm. Somewhere else is could be getting colder.

That is precisely the kinds of things these cons have been covering up.
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
area51newmexico
Goddess
Goddess


Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 10598
Location: East Yorkshire, England

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like I said in my original post, I don't know if globalwarming/climate change is true or whether it's one big con so I'm keeping an open mind.

minty the ancient wrote:
Great days, we don't get snow like that anymore.

First hand evidence you know.

If the world isn't getting any warmer, and this is all just a big con,
then why is the previous example not happening anymore ?


The main argument against humans being the cause of the change is that the earth's temperture has always been changing - even before us humans were about. Whether or not we've speeded it up or altered it, is another matter. Like you say, I can't imagine all the shit is any good! A bit like a teenager who eats junk food, they'll stay skinny for ages and then all of a suddenly the fat will appear!

What does worry me is resources running out - that's why I believe we should re-use and use more renewal energies rather than fossil fuels (and saved money too!)

A question for non-believers - if global warming/climate change is a big con, who's behind it and why? What do they have to gain by putting this fear into us?
_________________
Helen, the Administratrix of www.area51newmexico.com

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Article wrote:
The basin that contains Tupi, the new deepwater field estimated to hold the equivalent of five billion to eight billion barrels of light crude oil, is creating a buzz among the world's largest oil companies. They have struggled lately to find global-scale projects worth investing in, even with oil touching $100 a barrel. Tupi is the world's biggest oil find since a 12-billion-barrel field discovered in 2000 in Kazakhstan.


From this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/business/worldbusiness/11iht-oil.1.9147825.html

So you see, we're not exactly running out. . .

Helen wrote:
A question for non-believers - if global warming/climate change is a big con, who's behind it and why? What do they have to gain by putting this fear into us?

I'll have to dig and put a bunch of stuff together to make a lucid response to your question which by the way is at the crux of this entire discussion now.

The short answer is "Fear=Funds." But that is not a one dimensional equation. It runs the entire spectrum of humanity vertically and horizontally. From organizations seeking donations via school children to governments imposing taxes and treaties that penalize rich nations, fear=funds.

I'll give you a preview but I (we) may have to wait for someone with more resources than me to flesh it all out in an understandable group of paragraphs. The environmental movement became the new home of displaced socialists and communists in the early 90s.

The real target of environmentalism is capitalism. I hope I can collect the material that will be far more convincing than just "I said so."
_________________





Last edited by aalpha on Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
area51newmexico
Goddess
Goddess


Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 10598
Location: East Yorkshire, England

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To save the planet, we could always use this approach:

Look pale and interesting

*giggles*
_________________
Helen, the Administratrix of www.area51newmexico.com

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spartman
Veteran Contributer


Joined: 26 Jan 2009
Posts: 259
Location: Northern Idaho

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just my two cents worth.

I don't buy this global warming crap for a minute. Last winter we came within 1/2 inch of setting a new 100 year record for snow fall here in my chunk of Idaho.
The last of the snow did not melt off till mid April.

I read a large amount of the hacked e-mails and they admit that temperatures have been fairly steady since the 60's and they have to delete a lot of data to support their contentions of the warming curve.

And if Al Gore, who has invested a lot of money to take advantage of the supposed warming, is trumpeting this crap, It raises an eyebrow with me.

Plus, this global warming conference is just another gig to extricate more money from the masses in the form of their "carbon tax ". Higher electric bills, etc.

We are all being played like cheap pianos on a multitude of levels and it alarms the hell out of me.

Short of total revolt, how in the hell do we stop this crap ?

ARgghhhhhhhhhhh.

Spart








Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad
_________________
Practice makes adequate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lamiaceae
Site Administrator
Site Administrator


Joined: 05 Jul 2006
Posts: 7651
Location: To the right of my computer

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I, like Helen am also keeping a middle of the road stance, I want to see what both camps say and then come to my own conclusion.

As we seem to have more 'disbelievers' here than believers, it would make sense to throw a believer point of view in here and see what happens.

So I went here

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Global_warming


They start here, in their first point, emphasis my own

Quote:

The phrase “global warming” is also used to refer to the rapid rise in temperatures the planet has experienced since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In its simplest form, the argument for anthropogenic climate change goes as follows.

1. The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.
2. The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.
* 3. The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.*
* 4. The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to increase.*
5. The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.
6. The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.
7. The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.


Are our anti global warming people with me so far Smile ? - is there any debate that needs to be carried out at this stage ?


As for the *why* and who stands to benefit from this

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Global_warming#Entrenched_interests_and_global_warming_deniers
_________________
I should update my sig. What to put here for $CurrentYear ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I deleted my original post so the edit would appear as a new post since yer last visit.


The whole premise of the believers argument has been shot in the head. The scientists who have created and perpetuated the entire discussion have been found to be fraudulent.

Earth is not warming. The scientists have been working their asses off trying to keep the decline in temperature from being realized by the rest of us.

{edited by moi}

Minty wrote:
You sound like you've already made your mind up, you don't need to look for evidence aalpha, you've made your decision already.

A few out of context e-mail quotes don't make a counter argument against established peer reviewed scientific data gathered over the past few years, otherwise you may as well create a few emails that says there is no link between smoking and lung cancer and all of a sudden lung cancer is wiped from the face of the earth.


1075 emails are not a "few out of context quotes" The whole emails are there to be read.

The evidence is in the reporting of the last 30 years contrasted by the revelations being learned from the emails. Again not emphasising a few quotes. Quotes here show the tenor of the particular email and the entire collection as a whole.

You sound like you've made your mind up as well when you describe comments like. . . :
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

and . . . :

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."


. . . as out of context email quotes. I've read the emails those quotes come from and the quotes do not paint a different picture unsupported by the whole email.

The reason I sound like I've made up my mind already is because this scandal confirms what my common sense told me from the start.
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018034/climategate-%20%20e-mails-sweep-america-may-scuttle-barack-obamas-cap-and-trade-laws/


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response


My personal favorite excuse is the "scientists are speaking in code or language the outside world cannot understand."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers-access-month

Some minor points for Minty:
The emphasis is not on the word "trick" but the phrase "hide the decline"

Excerpts are offered in articles to interest readers to persue the library of over 1000 emails, not to twist the facts. To try that with the full text of the emails available to the public would be silly.

Nothing has been reported to my knowledge that would come close to the double entendres in the examples of your "quotationary." C'mon. You are comparing apples and rocks or sumin.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
AVARiCE
Lowering the Tone Since 2005


Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 5780
Location: London, England

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minty wrote:
Avarice defence mode activated

The media is lying to you

It's not hard to fake where an email comes from you know.

Those emails have been forged by the pro climate change contingent in an attempt to discredit the stop climate change majority.

And you're believing them! - this makes you stupid ( this is a staple of all Av posts there is a Ad hominem attack in them somewhere http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Ad_hominem )

On a more serious note, I will read this more properly when I get round tuit and be more sensible as i'm on my lunch break atm at work.



1) I've never believed in climate change, I think I vaguely remember aalpha and I actually arguing the point together. Good times. Rare, but good.

2) I don't ad hominem. I use insults frequently to devalue the other person but I don't use them as the basis of destabilising their posts. If anything, I do the process in reverse: "Your point about this is wrong because of this, that and the other. In fact, you're so wrong you're an idiot". Feel free to go back and check my posts, you'll find this to be true.

3) Heathrow really is a hellhole.

~ AVARiCE
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
aalpha
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin
Nicest Guy In The Universe/Site Admin


Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 8399
Location: Where ever you need me I'll be there. Whatever you need done I'll do it. Made in the USA.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of biased closed mindedness here's some quotes from a recent article quoting the director or head of the UN's IPCC.

If you want to save time it's utter denial. The scientist who wrote what he wrote said he didn't say it and the guy who heads the IPCC says he doesn't believe what the scientist said he would surely do could be done. **shrugs**

Here's the article link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails


Grade me on my snips and evaluate if I've taken their words out of context to make them say something they didn't say.


Article wrote:
There is "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN's top global warming body, its chair said today.

{snip}

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.


{snip}


Pachauri was responding to one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Pachauri said it was not clear whether the wording of the emails reflected the scientists' intended actions, but said: "I really think people should be discreet … in this day and age anything you write, even privately, could become public and to put anything down in writing is, to say the least, indiscreet … It is another matter to talk about this to your friends on the telephone or person to person but to put it down in writing was indiscreet. If someone was to say something like this in an IPCC authors' meeting then there are others who would chew him up."



OH!! OH!!! OH!!! Now that I've proof read this post I see now why the director has his head where the sun don't shine. He's limiting the possibility of all this being at the hands of "an author or two." The stupid git is not on board that this hoax is at the hands of many (if not the vast majority of) authors. D'oh!!!
_________________



Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Area 51 Forum Index -> Current Events All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Effex-Media Web Resources
Design by SkaidonDesigns | Distributed by Olate
 
Create your own free forum now!
Terms of Service Purchase Ad Removal Forum Archive Report Abuse