Climategate!

[justintempler]

If you have something to bring forward than do it. Quit posting shit about how Fox news and Glenn Beck sucks. This thread is about climate change.
.

When you and Glenn Beck stop sharing talking points about climate change, I'll stop talking about Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...rch_type=&aq=f

“global warming glenn beck” results 1 - 20 of about 1,140

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i7tMY3ou0Yo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DNbxYVa2VjA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>

[justintempler]

This AGW conspiracy of claiming the earth will die if it warms or cools is preposterous to say the least. It's been way hotter and way cooler a thousand times, and yet humans still exist and there are still millions of species that have existed through those same times of warming/cooling.

We'll try this again since you misinterpreted what I was trying to point out.

The earth isn't going anywhere. The earth will be here long after the human race has gone extinct.

The earth has gone through many natural cycles of warming and cooling in the last 3 billion years since life began. With each swing in each direction many millions of species have gone extinct.

The closest relative to human beings was the neanderthal man and it is believed that species went extinct 30,000 years ago because of an ice age and the species was starved out because they didn't share resources between communities.

We have a world population of almost 7 billion people and we already have wars over natural resources. Millions of people are already dying because of droughts and water shortages and global warming will make this problem even worse.

And your excuse for doing nothing is because a few people in the system are corrupt. I can point to any system and find corruption, but I don't use that as an excuse to bury my head in the sand and pretend that the problem doesn't exist and that there aren't consequences for our actions.

[justintempler]

The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.

Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”

“Lord Monckton points to deletions from the chapter, and there were deletions from the chapter, to be consistent with the other chapters we dropped the summary at the end,” Santer admits to the program.



Like I said, at the least this shows that there is some reason to question how much of this info is being skewed. Just throwing that out there.

For a second I thought those were your own thoughts.
I see now that it was a cut and paste from
Alex Jones' Prison Planet.
written by known conspiracy theorist Paul Joseph Watson

http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusiv...cc-report.html

cut and pasting a review about a global warming conspiracy theory from a conspiracy theory website

"this shows that there is some reason to question how much of this info is being skewed. Just throwing that out there"

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[sgreger1]

This AGW conspiracy of claiming the earth will die if it warms or cools is preposterous to say the least. It's been way hotter and way cooler a thousand times, and yet humans still exist and there are still millions of species that have existed through those same times of warming/cooling.

We'll try this again since you misinterpreted what I was trying to point out.

The earth isn't going anywhere. The earth will be here long after the human race has gone extinct.

The earth has gone through many natural cycles of warming and cooling in the last 3 billion years since life began. With each swing in each direction many millions of species have gone extinct.

The closest relative to human beings was the neanderthal man and it is believed that species went extinct 30,000 years ago because of an ice age and the species was starved out because they didn't share resources between communities.

We have a world population of almost 7 billion people and we already have wars over natural resources. Millions of people are already dying because of droughts and water shortages and global warming will make this problem even worse.

And your excuse for doing nothing is because a few people in the system are corrupt. I can point to any system and find corruption, but I don't use that as an excuse to bury my head in the sand and pretend that the problem doesn't exist and that there aren't consequences for our actions.

Justin we both agree that the earth is changing like it always has. We both agree poluttion is bad and there are, as you pointed out, already wars over clean water and food. But after that is when we split. How do you think cap-and-trade and all the thing they are trying to push are going to change this? By using crops that could be used as food for biofuel to power American vehicles while Africa starves?

It would be different if the UN came out with some report and said, "well as we all suspected, pollution is bad mmkay", but instead they are doing what they always do, saying we are overpolluting and have caused an impending disaster and only they have the keys to fix it.

If they were meeting trying to think of ways to save the earth or advance the green movement there would be no problem. But instead they are just trying to get everyone, including 3rd world countries ot buy into this carbon trading scheme, which just allows rich companies a formal way to pay off people to not recognize their pollution, as opposed to actually curving pollution. I could runa dirty unregulated coal factory if I wanted, all i gotta do is "offset my carbon footprint" with carbon credits. It does nothing to change the problem.


I't just like Obama's speach yesterday about how if we don't pass helathcare, we will be bankrupt. And before where if we don't pass a stimulus we will be in a deep depression. And before that when Bush said if we don't invade 2 countries American's will not be safe. When Harriet Truman said if we don't use 2 atom bombs no the enemies civilian populace, the war will not end.

It's just one thing after another.


And re: the guy who claimed he deleted shit from the reports. I don't know much about this back story, I got it off a site that apparently stole it from Alex Jones, who is extremely conspiracy minded so that definately takes credibility away from it. He's the same on who said Y2k was going to end us all back in 99. I saw a video with the guy giving his story and figured i'd post it. Don't know if it has any basis or not, and frankly is irrelevant.


I think we've hit critical mass on this subject unless anyone else has anything to contribute.

[tom502]

It's a giant ponzy scheme.

[sgreger1]

It's a giant ponzy scheme.

I know. We only have to look to europe to see it. It helps the environment almost none, it is bad for developing countries, and will require us to give billion a year of foreign aid to help other countries go green while our country steadly slips into bankruptcy. I can't believe they've duped all these people into thinking that if they pass cap and trade, somehow the big polluters will stop polluting.

When a politician comes out and is rallying for making big corporations stop their evil polluting ways, I know something is fishey.

[tom502]

sgreg-
This might appeal to you.
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/bla...sitemID=132213

[sgreger1]

sgreg-
This might appeal to you.
http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/bla...sitemID=132213

Thanks man i'll check it out when I get home since it's blocked by my firewall.

[tom502]

sgreg-
Wow, these songs rock, and their lyrics are spot on. You can hear them on the website too, and if you click the song title the lyrics pop up.
http://www.sons-of-liberty.net/

This is the lyrics for,
We The people-

We the people must unite
Reject this global scheme
The thought of world governance
And the evil that can bring

The tactic of financial meltdown
The crisis that they need
All the nations of this world
Must defend their sovereignty

This will lead to war and chaos
And the excuse they need
A World Order dictatorship
From their patiently crafted scheme

Corruption! The cancer that destroys us
Placate! They buy then bind us
Enslavement! Is there hope for those who falsely think they’re free?
Cowards! They hide in ivory towers
Treason! Committed by the hour
Destruction! Without the Constitution in bondage we will be

We The People
Surround Them
Rise up and seize the day!
We The People
Surround Them
End the tyrants’ reign!
We The People
Surround Them
Are you free, are you a slave?
We The People
Surround Them
Lock ‘em down we’ll have our way!

Tyrants! Complacency betrays us
Liars! Congress now enslaves us
Fascists! It’s what we are now, do you really think you’re free?
Power! They can’t live and let us be
Terror! It’s the tactic that they need
Deceivers! They have destroyed our freedoms and crushed our liberty

[sgreger1]

Oh yah Sons of Liberty (from Iced Earth)rock. Wow it looks like they just came out with a new album they are offering for free at www.sons-of-liberty.net

[lobstershack]

hey first post!


I didn't get to read the entire thread, buy my .02 cents is this: reducing the reliance on fossil fuels just makes sense all around, regardless of anything else. replacing a finite resource with renewable electricity could make massive changes in how stuff's created and produced. Cheaper overhead creates cheaper products due to the fact that transportation prices don't depend on the price of oil. Eventually this could lead to an even greater abundance of food, less conflict, and possibly the death of the resource based economy, replacing it with an economy that could require no money or labor, just automation. It's a pretty cool idea, it's been talked about in the movie Zeitgeist-Addendum. Might not agree with alot of people's tastes, but it's a pretty interesting analysis of modern monetary systems and society.

another point: regardless of the actual origins of global warming, isn't it just a good idea to make sure that we're not affecting the planet negatively?
yes it's kinda idealistic, but the planet and humanity are most likely going to live beyond this stage of human society, and it can either be greater or worse than anyone imagined.

The fact that a scientist emailed another scientist about tweaking data is kinda moot in light of this, Global warming is such a massively larger issue than the interests of businesess or politicians, which usually aren't the interests of anyone who isn't a business or a politician.

[sgreger1]

hey first post!


I didn't get to read the entire thread, buy my .02 cents is this: reducing the reliance on fossil fuels just makes sense all around, regardless of anything else. replacing a finite resource with renewable electricity could make massive changes in how stuff's created and produced. Cheaper overhead creates cheaper products due to the fact that transportation prices don't depend on the price of oil. Eventually

another point: regardless of the actual origins of global warming, isn't it just a good idea to make sure that we're not affecting the planet negatively?
yes it's kinda idealistic, but the planet and humanity are most likely going to live beyond this stage of human society, and it can either be greater or worse than anyone imagined.

The fact that a scientist emailed another scientist about tweaking data is kinda moot in light of this.

Hey Lobstershack! Welcome to snuson.

We all agree with you, even the antagonists on this thread (me). I agree that there is a serious need to curb pollution and I think we can all agree that there is no harm in cutting down our emissions a little bit.

Just to bring you up to speed, basically whats being debated here is that I believe cap & trade does not help pollution, but is just politicians leeching onto a legitimate green movement for their own gain. I believe that while man does have impact, the majority of warming cycles are natural, and I believe politicians are using this new crisis (yet again) it to gain more control and transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich via carbon credit trading. Cap and trade will not stop anyone from polluting, it's just another fiat currency which will benefit big business.

Justin Templar is arguing with me that global warming is entirely man made, and somehow Glenn Beck is behind it, and that is what the discussion is about.


Anyways, welcome to snuson!

[justintempler]

Justin Templar is arguing with me that global warming is entirely man made, and somehow Glenn Beck is behind it, and that is what the discussion is about.

You're a lost cause, I've never said anything close to either of those statements. When you can't win an argument you resort to distorting what your opposition is saying.

And your opposition to cap and trade, totally ignores the word cap. If you have a cap on something you have a closed system. You can't buy carbon credits that don't exist.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...7yx5gD9CLC2T00

AP Interview: SC senator stumps for climate change
By DINA CAPPIELLO – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham makes an unlikely champion for action on climate change.

The South Carolina Republican has joined forces with Democrat John Kerry of Massachusetts and independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to drum up support for a bill that would put a price on heat-trapping pollution.

Graham's position has irked just about everybody. He has been censured by Republicans back home for supporting a bill that would clamp down on greenhouse gases. Environmentalists have criticized his push for nuclear energy, more oil drilling — and most recently his support of a GOP effort to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Some Democrats are just befuddled.

But his ability to attract enough votes for a bill to pass the Senate may well determine whether President Barack Obama can deliver on the promises he makes at U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen this week, and whether he will achieve one of his top domestic priorities: setting up a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on each ton of global warming pollution released.

Graham sat down with The Associated Press for a half-hour interview Thursday to discuss his stance on climate change.

Q: How did you get involved in this issue?

A: It was a slow evolution. I started traveling with Sen. (John) McCain, who has been a climate change advocate for a long time, and I went to the Arctic region with him and Sen. (Hillary Rodham) Clinton. I came to the conclusion from listening to the scientists ... from people who lived in the regions, that the canary in the coal mine is in the Arctic regions, and that the planet is heating up. How much is caused by greenhouse gases, I don't know. But I believe to some extent it's a contributing factor. ...

Now, why did I choose to do something this time around? ... The one thing that I could say without any doubt, that the best chance to create jobs for the future here in this country is energy independence. And you will never become energy independent until you price carbon.

Where are the friction points to getting to 60 votes (to advance a bill)? If the emissions standard is not meaningful, if it's not economy-wide, I don't think you get there. This whole issue of China and India and a global regime looms large in getting 60 votes in the Senate. Without some assurances that this is not a unilateral surrendering of market share to China and India — because our companies will have a burden imposed upon them not shared by China and India — is a huge political problem. ... Those are some of the trip wires that exist to getting to 60 votes.

Q: Why haven't you been able to convince other Republicans to buy your argument?

A: I can convince Republicans pretty quickly of (oil and gas) drilling, nuclear power and alternative energy. This is not about polar bears for me, it's about jobs, cleaner air and purer water.

Cap-and-trade has been a tainted term. The bills that exist today have not been able to gather moderate Democratic support, they have not been able to gather Republican support. The cap-and-trade system has been called cap-and-tax and I think for some good reasons. So what I have to convince Republicans of is that you know as well as I do this is the best way for us to create new jobs in the future, that you know the green economy is coming worldwide and the only way we are going to get there is to lead, not follow.

Q: Obviously it seems that you are not for the EPA regulating greenhouse gases through existing law?

A: This is the worst of all worlds. They (the EPA) can only impose burdens on business, they can't give business the tools to comply with those burdens. They can't give the nuclear power companies the incentives they need to build more nuclear power plants.

Q: Are any Republicans still talking to you?

A: My ace in the hole is business. The one thing I have going for me that could win the day is I have a lot of business people encouraging me to try to do this compromise.

Q: Are you concerned about the political fallout back home, where some Republican leaders have censured you for your climate change stance?

A: My state has 12 percent unemployment, so I think I am going to win the day back home. I am confident that I can sell this because my state is on its knees economically.

Q: What are your thoughts on the scandal over the hacked e-mails from some prominent climate scientists, which many Republicans have claimed discredits the science showing that pollution is causing climate change?

A: Well, I never embraced this from that point of view. You will never convince me all these cars, and all these trucks, and all these power plants spewing out carbon, fossil fuels, day in and day out for 60 or 70 years is a good thing. It makes perfect sense to me that this amount of carbon pollution over a long period of time has had a detrimental effect on the environment. I don't get wrapped up into how much is caused by man, or how much is caused by nature. I do believe pursuing clean air and clean water is a good thing for my generation to do.

Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert contributed to this report.

[justintempler]

Oh noes :!: :!: :!: the Republicans are starting to agree with those evil liberals. like Kerry and Boxer :twisted:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...d=opinionsbox1

A senator in a hostile climate

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther.

Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was in talks with Democrats over a compromise bill -- the traitor! And as Inhofe listened, fellow Republicans on the committee -- turncoats! -- made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe's view that man-made global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

"Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming," admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."

An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars." And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."

Then there was poor Inhofe. "The science is more definitive than ever? You keep saying that because you want to believe it so much," he said bitterly. He offered to furnish a list of scientists who once believed in climate change but "who are solidly on the other side right now." The science, he said, "already has shifted" against global-warming theory. "Science is not settled! Everyone knows it's not settled!"

Inhofe called for more oil drilling. His aides tried to debunk the other senators' points by passing around papers titled "Rapid Response." Mid-hearing, Inhofe's former spokesman, now in the private sector, sent out an e-mail -- "Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming.' "

The climate of the hearing itself seemed designed to burn Inhofe. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), sponsor of the climate bill, insisted on having it in a too-small hearing room, causing the place to overheat from all the bodies. Though none of the committee Republicans are supporting her cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions so far, Boxer made it clear that her primary grievance is with one Republican. "Since John Warner retired, I don't have a Republican partner on the committee, but I am appreciative for the productive conversations I've had with Senator Alexander, about nuclear energy, and for the wide-ranging conversations and meetings I had with Senator Voinovich," Boxer said, pointedly omitting Inhofe.

Inhofe began by expressing surprise that Boxer would even use the term "global warming," asserting that "people have been running from that term ever since we went out of that natural warming cycle about nine years ago." And he turned with a fury on Graham, his fellow Republican, for an "apparent compromise will also entail a massive expansion of government bureaucracy."

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the first witness, turned up the temperature further on Inhofe. He gave a Gore-like tour of climate catastrophe: "the science is screaming at us to take action . . . pine beetles have destroyed 6.5 million acres of forestland . . . 180 Alaskan villages are losing permafrost . . . we have columns of methane rising now in the ocean."

Kerry went on like this for an extraordinary 26 1/2 minutes that included the phrase, uttered with no apparent self-consciousness, "we invented wind." At various points, Kerry signaled an end with "I'll just close" or "I'll just end on this note" but continued on. This infuriated nobody as much as Inhofe, whom Kerry repeatedly singled out for a lecture. "Senator Inhofe, you just talked about the costs of doing some of this," he said. But "the cost of doing nothing," Kerry countered, "is far more expensive for your folks in Oklahoma."

Inhofe, who glared back at Kerry, still seethed a few minutes later when he interrupted the chairman. "You know, I sat here for 25 minutes listening to Senator Kerry talk about me, and I didn't have a chance to respond," he complained. "I will, however."

"I so appreciate it," Boxer said.

Inhofe molested the majority by having committee staffers put up on the dais a series of 3-by-5-foot posters with messages such as "Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs" and "U.S. Unemployment High/Why Kill More Jobs With Cap & Trade?" But this failed to cool Inhofe's temper, and by the time his turn came to question the administration witnesses, Inhofe was so steamed that he used his entire five minutes to vent.

He described the Democrats' proposal as "the largest tax increase in -- in history!" Agitated, his utterances disjointed, Inhofe went on: "Now, I also was -- was kind of -- I don't want any of the media to think just because I had to sit here and listen to our good friend Senator Kerry for 28 minutes, that I don't have responses to everything he said."

Nobody doubted that Inhofe had a response. The doubt was whether the response would make any sense.

[justintempler]

..I believe politicians are using this new crisis (yet again) it to gain more control and transfer wealth from the middle class to the rich via carbon credit trading....

Let me get this straight,
Cap and trade is a transfer of wealth
but
the billion dollars a day we spend on imported oil is not :?: :!:

So you're fine with that transfer of wealth :?: :roll:
What's your solution :?:
Keep printing more fiat dollars until they are worthless :?: :roll:

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVp6uxNl6jA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed>