Jan
Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers
We are turning up the heat in pursuit of prosecutions against scientists involved in the recent Climategate scandal. Our dedicated group of volunteers working with Climategate.com are behind a plan to entice co-workers of discredited Penn State University climatologist Michael Mann to turn whistleblowers in return for millions of dollars in federal reward money. Mann is famous for his emails obtained from the East Anglia University server hacking, and for creating the widely disputed ‘hockey stick’ graph that is depicted in Al Gore’s film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
An “inconvenient truth” for Mann is that an ally of ours, former CIA agent Kent Clizbe, has this weekend emailed the proxy professor’s co-workers with details of the tempting offer that could turn 2010 into quite a prosperous New Year. We hope someone at this premiere world research institution will come forward and substantiate the facts from evidence already uncovered from the government emails leaked on November 19, 2009. The emails, among other things, show correspondence between Michael Mann and British Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research, which discuss methods to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
If any of the dozens of co-workers in the US or the UK are prepared to give evidence, even if it doesn’t lead to any convictions, they could benefit from a share of tens of millions of dollars in recovered public funds. The Whistleblower idea came up in Internet discussions with top US fraud lawyer, Joel Hesch, of Hesch and Associates and former CIA agent, Kent Clizbe. Clizbe’s idea was to email the offer to all 27 of Mann’s co-workers at Penn State’s Earth System Science Center (ESSC) this weekend.
Whether convictions are obtained or not, Mr. Hesch assures prospective whistleblowers they will receive a substantial share of any monies recovered. Federal investigators reward whistleblowers with an average payment of $1.5 million based on the sums of money recovered. The US Federal government has paid out almost $3 billion so far in such rewards. The largest rewards to date exceed $150 million, and one out of every five applicants gets a monetary reward. Estimates of the total sums invested in government climate research already exceed $50 billion. The offer put on the table to Mann’s colleagues could be the most lucrative whistleblower deal ever made.
Kent Clizbe, who authored the email to Mann’s co-workers, has extensive experience in protecting the confidentiality and security of his clients. Both as an executive recruiter, and as a former government intelligence officer, Kent specialized in protecting the confidentiality of interactions with his clients.
ESSC employees will read Kent’s offer Monday morning when they switch on their computers to check their email. In his message, Kent tells them, “the whistleblowers with inside knowledge of misused federal grant dollars will enjoy the highest level of confidentiality possible. We suggest that you contact Kent using an email account outside of your work. Details can be found at www.kentclizbe.com. Alternatively, you may also contact attorney Joel Hesch, of Hesch and Associates, through his website HowToReportFraud.com.
We at Climategate.com made the decision to give our scoop to the widely read climate change skeptic and journalist, James Delingpole of the Daily Telegraph, for maximum dissemination of this story. Earlier today he went public with it in Climategate: Michael Mann’s very unhappy New Year at the Telegraph.
Possibly related posts:
- Penn State’s paper spreads the word on ex-CIA agent going after Michael Mann
- Penn State Daily Collegian keeps the focus on Michael Mann
- Penn State Protects Michael “Climategate” Mann
- Federal preemption law forbids Penn State from hiding behind “FOIA Exemption”
- Economic stimulus funds that went to Penn State climategate scientist should be returned
[[C’mon..are you a creationist? This is an important question as if this is the case then I realize the conversation is indeed over.]]
LOL- Attaboy- way to discuss subject issues objectively- if all it takes for you to dismiss scientific facts is to learn about unrelated issues of your opponent, then indeed- the ‘discussion’ is infact over. We are discussing the science of CO2, not personal beliefs outside of the science. If you want to duck out of the discussion by derailing the topic by focussing on other issues unrelated to the discussion, then that’s your perrogative.
The issue is CO2 levels and whether they cause warming- the discussion isn’t about hte origins of mankind. Whether life began 1000′s of years ago or millions (or billions- whatever you beleive), the fact is that scientific evidence shows periods of warming, then CO2 rises, then Cooling, and hten CO2 drops that refute the claims and predictions made by climate models and refute claims made by folks hiding such evidence to make their cases sound more dire.- whether htis happened in 1000′s of years, or millions or billions isn’t the issue- the issue is that it did happen, we have eivdence, and we know life thrived. My point was that IF you beleive life arose fro mthe sea, and hte evidence shows that htere was 20 times more CO2 in ‘early life’ then the alarmist mantra that ‘acidification of hte oceans is havign an irreversibly dire effect on life i nthe oceans’ doesn’t hold water- Studies have shown that infact life thrives in acidic environments- species grow larger faster, stronger faster etc. I also showed evidence that humans can not infact acidify the oceans in any appreciable measurable degree
Since ‘man-caused global warming’ claims have failed, the new claim is ‘deadly ocean acidification will wipe out life as we know it’- which is an even more assurd argument than the ‘man-caused global warming is hurting hte planet’ argument.
“Recent claims by climate change alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started loosing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because currently only about 40% of anthropogenic emissions stay in the atmosphere, the rest is sequestered by a number of processes on land and sea. The warning that the oceans have reached their fill and their capacity to remove atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by the prediction that this will cause greenhouse warming to accelerate in the future. A new study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data and concludes that the portion of CO2 absorbed by the oceans has remained constant since 1850.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ocean-absorption-of-co2-not-shrinking.html
But I’m sure hte above article is nothign but ‘loose language’ and ‘non squitors’ to you- You claimed you were ‘looking for answers’ and that you were ‘undecided’, but I submit you are infact decided, and simply looking for chinks in the armour of the ‘denier scientists’ (which really there is nothign wrong with IF one is to be objective, however, objectivity goes both ways- when the evidence supporting one claim falls apart, and is ignored, while chinks in the opposition’s evidence are the only things that are glommed onto- one can’t claim to be objectively ‘looking for truth’-)
I’ve twice listed studies that have shown that Oceanic CO2 levels have reamined steady since 1850, and that atmospheric CO2 levels have remained steady for 160 years, and all you’ve got is ‘Tell me now if you’re a creationist- because if so, the discussion is over’? Wow- Glad to see upfront the kind of opponent I’m dealing with- thanks for at least being frank about your bias and unwavering subjective approach to science
From link above:
“Some have suggested that reducing human CO2 emissions by 50% would bring atmospheric levels into equilibrium. This new report raises the possibility that, if human emissions were lowered, absorption levels by the oceans and land plants might decline as well, maintaining the growth in overall atmospheric CO2 levels. It also seems possible that, if man’s release of carbon dioxide is greatly reduced, the terrestrial biosphere could shift from a net absorber to a producer of greenhouse gas. The change in sources and sinks over time is presented graphically in figure S3 from the paper’s supplementary information, shown below:
These observations imply that all the hoopla about reining in CO2 levels may be working at odds with nature, that Earth’s environment already has mechanisms in place to regulate changing levels of greenhouse gases. The observation that the terrestrial biosphere was a source of CO2 until the 1940s, and has subsequently become a sink, indicate that the problem is not as simple as shutting down factories and banning SUVs. With nature regulating GHG levels on its own, perhaps we have time to look more closely into the matter before we leap off an economic cliff at the urging of the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore.”
Whatever- as I said- IF you’re really serious about ‘learnign hte truth’- there are plenty of excellent sites that present the sciecne which refutes the alarmism by agendists claiming man is ruining hte planet- I listed several (and that was climatedepot.com — not .org as I said in previous post) Sentator inhoffe has testimonies by scientist after scientist who have worked o nthe IPCC reports and have confessed that they were coerced and intimidated into signing hteir names to conclusiosn that they did NOT agree with, and who have confessed that they were ordered to hide evidence which didn’t fit the IPCC’s alarmist claims. He also has reports by many scientists fro maroudn the world which refute the claims, show the evidence, and debunk the junk science that is being peddled to induce fears of climate dissaster. It’s an excellent site to get the FACTS from independent scientsists all over the world. But alas, I may or may not beleive in evolution, so apprently nothign I post cabn be trusted regardless of the FACT that what I post shows that peer review reports contradict hte alarmist’s claims.
“… thus it will be necessary to blame CO2 (and hence man) for some other catastrophic event. So, prepare yourself for the coming “ocean acidification” scam.
The media have already entered the fray with lying narratives that sound like science fiction scripts, warning about the catastrophe of ‘acid oceans’ and ‘toxic seas’. The BBC have churned out headlines such as ‘Marine life faces ‘acid threat”, ‘Acid oceans ‘need urgent action” and ‘Acidic seas fuel extinction fears’. Newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Times have got in on the act with scary headlines such as ‘Mussels face extinction as oceans turn acidic’, ‘Pollution to devastate shellfish by turning seas acidic’ and ‘Acid seas threaten to make British shellfish extinct’. Just recently, it has got all the more strident: the Sunday Times (March 8, 2009) chimes in under the headline The toxic sea:
Each one of us dumps a tonne of carbon dioxide into the oceans every year, turning them into acidified soups — and threatening to destroy most of what lives in them.
And from the Guardian (March 10, 2009) under the headline Carbon emissions creating acidic oceans not seen since dinosaurs:
Human pollution is turning the seas into acid so quickly that the coming decades will recreate conditions not seen on Earth since the time of the dinosaurs…The rapid acidification is caused by the massive amounts of carbon belched out from chimneys and exhausts that dissolve in the ocean…the pH of surface waters, where the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere, has fallen about 0.1 units since the industrial revolution, though it will take longer for the acid to reach deeper water.”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/ocean-acidification-scam/
SemiTechnical Refutation to the above alarmist claims by the mainstream media (Great article that puts to rest the nonsense that ‘Deadly ocean acidification threatens life’):
“The theory behind the ‘toxic ocean acidification’ scam proceeds like this: as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the concentration in the oceans also increases due to dissolution [true – all other things being equal]. CO2 dissolved in water reacts with water to form carbonic acid, making the seas acidic [a half truth – they become very slightly less basic]. This acidity dissolves the shells of marine life causing mass extinction [an utter falsehood].
As a matter of fact, seawater is alkaline and basic. Dissolving the carbon dioxide from all the world’s known fossil fuel reserves would never make the sea acidic. The climate alarmists coined the phrase “ocean acidification” to make it sound alarming, whereas the process is actually what is known as neutralization. The term ‘acidification’ of course sounds more scary than talking about the oceans becoming slightly less basic or a little more neutral.
To put this into perspective, the pH of seawater is, on average, around pH 8.2. Pure water is pH 7.0, and clean rainwater is pH 5.6. What is more, seawater is a highly buffered solution – it can take up a huge amount of dissolved inorganic carbon without significant effect on pH. There is not the slightest possibility that the oceans could approach the neutral pH of pure water even if all the fossil fuel reserves in the world were burned, so all talk of ‘acid’ oceans is utter nonsense. What sort of change are we talking about? Possibly a change of pH of 0.2 units this century, say from 8.2 to 8.0. That would mean by definition that there were still no more than 10% of the ‘acidic’ H+ ions than there are in pure water.
The so-called science behind this ‘acid ocean’ scare is highly questionable. Firstly, an increasing concentration of CO2 in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans (as it does on the land), and so increases the growth of plant life in the ocean, including phytoplankton, upon which ‘graze’ zooplankton, which is food for a vast range of sea animals, including whales….”
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
I went to the site and read the article..you perhaps understate the case when you refer to it as a semi technical refutation. It definitely is semi technical and semi literate as well. I was particularly impressed with with this line of semi technical scientific reasoning:
…”Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview…”:
There you have it..if it weren’t for the atheistic world view none of this AGW stuff would be happening.
Again, CottShop..I enquire..are you a creationist?
I wonder if the offer of a monetary reward might be malproductive…? Would any evidence obtained by such means be considered credible, or would otherwise good information be rendered suspect…?
On the other hand, asking a whistleblower to come forward is like asking someone to commit career suicide, so maybe compensation IS appropriate…. ???
[...] Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers [...]
CottShop..
Thanks for your lengthy (2 lengthy) replies…
Before getting into this again..You haven’t answered my first question regarding your educational background. Dont’ want to sound too prissy here but it would be nice to know if you actually have the background to understand the science well enough to make the categorical statements that you make. I admit that I don’t have the background to fully understand much of what I read and when one visits sites that are either pro or con one becomes buried under ‘clashing facts’ and must rely on the expertise of others when attempting to come to some sort of final judgment.
As well, I think it’s absolutely of fundamental importance what one’s basic world view is and that is why I asked about your possibly being a creationist. You have to admit that if one believes that the world was created in a week or so about 6 or 7 thousand years ago citing the bible as their peer-reviewed evidence – and further believes that HE is returning to enact a scorched earth policy – he or she is going to make different choices about what are ‘facts’ and which ones to pay attention to in any debate. In that context, personal foundational beliefs do play an important role and as there is no impirical evidence supporting such a belief (creationism) it further attests to a person’s propensity to believe even when their is a lack of evidence.
As to life in acidic oceans. I don’t disagree that life of some sort can and has in the past lived under all sorts of different conditions – hot, cold, acidic, wet. dry etc. Again, as I understand it, it is the speed with which conditions are predicted to change which will not allow organisms to adapt. Millions of years ago the oceans the oceans were approx 37degrees and totally acidic and there were varieties of plankton (apparently) who conducted photosynthesis using H2So4..(Hydrogen Sulphate?).So yes, life can and has adapted to different regimes, but not human life. My concern is not the planet..it’s our ability to live on it.
You say: “Recent claims by climate change alarmists have raised the possibility that terrestrial ecosystems and particularly the oceans have started loosing part of their ability to absorb a large proportion of man-made CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because currently only about 40% of anthropogenic emissions stay in the atmosphere, the rest is sequestered by a number of processes on land and sea. The warning that the oceans have reached their fill and their capacity to remove atmospheric CO2 is accompanied by the prediction that this will cause greenhouse warming to accelerate in the future. A new study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data and concludes that the portion of CO2 absorbed by the oceans has remained constant since 1850.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ocean-absorption-of-co2-not-shrinking.html
I must admit at the outset that I find most of the material on prison planet to be of the over the top conspiracy variety and so do not count it as a solid source of legitimate evidence. I am familiar with the article you mention; It originally appeared under that misleading headline in Science Daily..they subsequently corrected it and I would in turn direct you to this article for another point of view. Apparently the percentage of atmospheric CO2 (man made) has crept up to 45% now which is the basis for thinking that perhaps the sinks are becoming less efficient in their CO2 uptake.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/05/climate-science-atmospheric-co2-fraction-risen-dangerously-fast-rate-knorr/#more-17032
I agree with your premise that in the interest of objectivity, one should examine all the ‘chinks’ in the armour of both sides of the debate..but I must admit that most of the ‘chinks’ pointed out by the denialist side lack credibility.
You say: …” I’ve twice listed studies that have shown that Oceanic CO2 levels have reamined steady since 1850, and that atmospheric CO2 levels have remained steady for 160 years…”
Please see the above mentioned website discussing the Knorr paper..
I also agree that we should be careful before we, as you quoted in your post,…”leap off an economic cliff at the urging of the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore…” As I see it, the changes required in our lifestyles would benefit the planet (see my comments in previous post regarding environmental degradation) and the economy as it would open up an entirely new market for alternate energy sources manufacturing etc. I too am distrustful of the carbon cap and trade idea..but not because of any socialist takeover but, rather, the robber barons of wall street who would no doubt be running the show. I shudder to think what would be the result of Goldman Sachs playing the carbon market as they did the derivatives and sub-prime mortgage markets. And these guys are the paragons of the free enterprise capitalist system. I mean, when it comes to damaging the planet’s economy and ruling the lives of the great unwashed..who needs the socialists when we have bankers like Goldman Sachs?
You imply that the so-called ‘claims’ of man ruining the planet are bogus and not supported by evidence. I would take issue with this thesis. There is alarming – and I do mean alarming – evidence in ample supply that species are disappearing, the oceans are emptying of large fish..(if you live in Washington on the west coast you must be aware of the disappearing salmon stocks) , millions of acres of pine forest are dead from beetle kill and on and on.
With regards to the IPCC report and Senator Inhofe..As the report is a distillation of thousands of scientists research and must be tweaked to become politically palatable to different governments, I’m not surprised that there are many scientists who are in disagreement with the compromised (as in making compromises) final result. I’m also sure that there are just as many scientists who are in disagreement with the report because it pulls its punches and is not honest /alarmist enough in its attempt to be all things to all governments.
I must admit that I haven’t been to Climatedepot.com but will visit the site. I have a hunch that what I find there will be more of the same denialist sort of thing that I’ve read elswhere on sites that are purported to have the ‘facts’. But I’m open to being surprised.
This brings me to something I mentioned some time ago in another post on this site about people talking past each other in an endless pissing contest and naming this or that site or scientist or paper as having the ‘facts’. I find this disappointing and depressing. You mentioned at the opening of your post..I quote…”if all it takes for you to dismiss scientific facts is to learn about unrelated issues of your opponent,…”
I think it interesting to think about the use of the term ‘opponent’. I’m not really interested in being an opponent but would rather the discourse take the form of a mutual enquiry into the facts so that we would both benefit. I think that perhaps we live in such an oppositional, adversarial and competitive society inwhich we are encouraged to think in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ that it may be impossible for such a cooperative approach.
I think that our capitalist enterprise is beginning to see the results of ignoring the existence of limits. We surely cannot continue infinitely growing an economy (and a population) on what is undeniably a finite planet. There are limits and this “old world of ours”, as you so prosaically put it in another post, will enforce them. And chances are it won’t be pretty. We have the opportunity, as beings with rational capabilities to limit ourselves now and avoid the natural limits that surely will kick in. Like you say, the planet and it’s climate and it’s flora and fauna change..species come and go. In nature there are no positives or negatives..only consequences. I think it prudent that we make the attempt to stay here long enough to perhaps evolve and become the intelligent creatures that we are so fond of thinking we already are.
As an aside..if life didn’t evolve from the oceans..what is your explanation?
a handshake in thought
[...] Top Fraud attorney seeks Penn State climategate whistleblowers | CLIMATEGATE. January 7th, 2010 | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment | [...]
[[As well, I think it’s absolutely of fundamental importance what one’s basic world view is and that is why I asked about your possibly being a creationist.]]
Really? And is it “fundamentally important” when creationist who are scientists think man is responsible for global warming? Or does your stipulations only apply to creationist scientists or lay people who don’t think man is to blame?
[[You have to admit that if one believes that the world was created in a week or so about 6 or 7 thousand years ago citing the bible as their peer-reviewed evidence]]
I haven’t seen anyone here “Citing hte bible as peer review source”, and I certainly haven’t done so nor do I intend to- You’re attempting to derail the conversation and to argue points that are not relevent to the discussion here- As I’ve said- I’ve been at this a long time now, and one hting I’ve noted over the years when arguing the issue with believers in ‘man-caused global wamring’ is that they never ever address the key issues being made, never address any of the pertinent evidences, and always try to derail the conversations down rabbit trails. I see I’m in for another such ‘conversation’.
[[he or she is going to make different choices about what are ‘facts’ and which ones to pay attention to in any debate.]]
Really? Facts are facts- when the facts show for isntance that man is only responsible for 3% CO2 in atmosphere, and that amounts to 11.9 ppm, and the total CO2 by both man and nature only amounts to 330 ppm, and ‘dangerous levels’ of CO2 are over 5000 ppm, and that ‘in the past, CO2 levels were 20 times higher according ot hte evidence- there isn’t any other way to ‘interpret’ those statements- We’re talking the science of CO2 here- not some religious beliefs- but you seem intent on bending the conversation in that direcion.
[[As to life in acidic oceans. I don’t disagree that life of some sort can and has in the past lived under all sorts of different conditions – hot, cold, acidic, wet. dry etc. Again, as I understand it, it is the speed with which conditions are predicted to change which will not allow organisms to adapt.]]
Good- now we’re back to the discussion. “The Speed”? Scientists predict that the PH will drop from 8.2% to 8.0% by 2050- and that’s ONLY IF things remain constant (as the articles I pointed out htouhg show, things do NOT remain constant, and nature equalizes things as it always has) neutral water, as pointed out in the links I presented, are 7.0%
[[Millions of years ago the oceans the oceans were approx 37degrees and totally acidic]]
Source please- that’s a pretty wild statement
[[So yes, life can and has adapted to different regimes, but not human life. My concern is not the planet..it’s our ability to live on it.]]
Again, IF your position is that life arose from the sea- then not only did ‘life adapt’ it thrived concidering the hypothesis is that EVERY life form came fro mthe sea originally- so, not just a ‘few susrvived and adapted’ but every life form that supposedly crawled out of hte sea woudl have had to survive just fine
[[Apparently the percentage of atmospheric CO2 (man made) has crept up to 45% now which is the basis for thinking that perhaps the sinks are becoming less efficient in their CO2 uptake.]]
This isn’t true- again this is deceptive- our contribution isn’t 45%- what the article says is quite different than what you just said- only 45% of AGW stays in the atmosphere- NOT that man is responsbile for 45% of CO2 i nthe atmosphere- this is an important distinction, and has been explained several times now
[[but I must admit that most of the ‘chinks’ pointed out by the denialist side lack credibility.]]
Easy enough for you to say- how about citing those ‘chinks’ and refuting hteir claims and hte evidnece then? I’ve presented evidence after eviodence that refutes the claims ‘man-caused global warming’ advocates have made-
[[I also agree that we should be careful before we, as you quoted in your post,…”leap off an economic cliff at the urging of the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore…”]]
That wasn’t me- that was a quote from the website I listed
[[As I see it, the changes required in our lifestyles would benefit the planet (see my comments in previous post regarding environmental degradation) and the economy]]
you must have missed one of the links I mentioned showing that muckign with environmental CO2 could very well infact mess things up royally- it SHOULD behoove us to make absolutely positive that mucking with CO2 levels isn’t infact goign to muck things up before we even begin concidering action- but nope- scientists supporting ‘man-caused global warming’ want to leap into action headfirst without checking hte depths-
[[as it would open up an entirely new market for alternate energy sources manufacturing etc.]]
NOONE is arguing alternative energy sources shouldn’t be investigated- but it should cost us literally trillions of dollars in the form of Carbon credits to do so to ‘fix a problem’ that isn’t infact a problem
[[I too am distrustful of the carbon cap and trade idea..but not because of any socialist takeover but, rather, the robber barons of wall street who would no doubt be running the show.]]
The EU would be controlling all such $$ transfers- and folks like Al Gore, who was heavily invested in Carbon Trading companies, woudl have been the benificieries- as well, the sceitnists woudl have continued raking in billions to keep ‘studying’ the non problem- I doubt wallstreet’s take would have even come close to hte socialist’s take who woudl be runnign hte carbon credit scam
[[There is alarming – and I do mean alarming – evidence in ample supply that species are disappearing,]]
Got a link to CO2 proving man is causing htis? There are many reasons why species die off
[[the oceans are emptying of large fish..]]
Hmmmm- last I checked, many whale species are recovering since fishing regulations clamped down on overfishing- not sure how soem other species dying off though prove man is causing their demise?
[[(if you live in Washington on the west coast you must be aware of the disappearing salmon stocks) ,]]
Again htere are many factors invovled in this- damns o nthe rivers, overfishing, illegal fishing, pesticides flowing into rivers- you could certainly possibly make a case that man might be causing the decline, but linking it to ‘man-caused’ global warming? That’s a stretch
[[millions of acres of pine forest are dead from beetle kill and on and on.]]
Egads- Talk about non sequitors- what has the fact that a mistake which allowed those beetles i n in hte first place got to do with ‘man caused’ global warming?
[[With regards to the IPCC report and Senator Inhofe..As the report is a distillation of thousands of scientists research and must be tweaked to become politically palatable to different governments, I’m not surprised that there are many scientists who are in disagreement with the compromised (as in making compromises) final result.]]
You can’t seriously be suggesting they have cofnessed to being coerced simply for ‘politcal reasons’? When hte FACT is that by doing so, they were ostracised, intimidated and teated as ‘traitors’ by their own group of science?
[[I’m also sure that there are just as many scientists who are in disagreement with the report because it pulls its punches and is not honest /alarmist enough in its attempt to be all things to all governments.]]
research the numbers- if numbers is your game- you’ll find there are far more scientists who dissagree that man is responsible than actually agree-
[[I think it interesting to think about the use of the term ‘opponent’. I’m not really interested in being an opponent but would rather the discourse take the form of a mutual enquiry into the facts]]
Really? Because so far, you’ve avoided the facts and simpyl just waved a hand and instead, at best, mostly just glommed onto irrelevent points or personal opinions of the writers that are mixed in with the facts- I’ve brougt up several key scientific points that I’ve managed to glean from the articles, and have yet to see you address the points except to make a generalized statement that the oceans are acidifying ‘speedily’ (in contrast to the evidence I provided)
[[I think that perhaps we live in such an oppositional, adversarial and competitive society inwhich we are encouraged to think in terms of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ that it may be impossible for such a cooperative approach.]]
You won’t find completely civil discussion anywhere you go-0 Even the science sites discussing hte issues are not exempt from soem forms of hostility- oh- they may be ‘more refined’ or subtle (or in the case of Jones and Mann- not so refined or subtle), but they are just as nasty
[[I think that our capitalist enterprise is beginning to see the results of ignoring the existence of limits. We surely cannot continue infinitely growing an economy (and a population) on what is undeniably a finite planet.]]
You do realize how insignificant our presence really is don’t you? even at 9 billion, we haven’t even begun over-exploiting this old world, and I think we’re actually doing a pretty darn good job preserving vast vast tracts of lands and parks and ‘sensitive environments’ all over the world, as well as cleanign up our industries compared to what they were i nthe beginning of the industrial age. Somehow I just knew that the ‘overpopulation’ and ‘time is running out’ argument was goign to come into play here
We’r goign to have to start concentrating on just one or two issue from here on out- I can’t spend all day replying to a few dozen points (most of which were unrelated to the discussion, a few of which don’t have any evidence to support hte claims that man is supoposedly involved in their demise due to our scant output of CO2)
Well CottShop..
I spent about an hour putting together a reply to your last post and when I went elswhere to find a source for my statement that millions of years ago the oceans were 37 degrees and highly acidic,I inadvertently lost my post…so you’re lucky..I haven’t the jam to do it all again and I’m sure it would be a waste of time..so for now I’ll just leave you with this link to a presentation by Richard B Alley who, coincidently, is from Penn State U. where he talks of the rise and fall of CO2 for the last few hundred thousand years..it’s really quite interesting and if you actually watch it you might actually learn something. Although you have proven yourself to be quite resistant so far.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Just for the record..whales aren’t fish..they are mammals.
And what in hell are talking about here in response to my statement about beetle kill in forests?
…”Egads- Talk about non sequitors- what has the fact that a mistake which allowed those beetles i n in hte first place got to do with ‘man caused’ global warming?…”
Pine beetles have been an integral part of the forests for hundreds of years..perhaps millennia. But as we no longer get minus 30 degree winter weather to control their numbers they have grown exponentially and have eaten their way thru millions of square miles of forests. A direct result of global warming. For brevity’s sake, I’ll ignore the ‘man made’ question for now. I really have no clue what you are talking about in your quote above which is a direct cut and paste from your post.
And as for citations and papers you have presented as evidence for you more outlandish and categorical statements, I find it impossible to accept as credible a proposed refutation that contains inane remarks like:
…”Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview…”
I won’t go on..these are just a few of the innumerable half baked half truths and other totally unjustified remarks that you present as rational discourse.
I have suspicions that you are indeed a creationist as you still won’t answer the question. As a further aside..I’m curious..How does someone who believes the earth was created..I don’t know..6 or 7 thousand years ago hold that concept in their mind and at the same time seriously consider ice cores that are 6 or 8 hundred thousand years old without their head exploding? I realize it’s way off topic but I had to ask.
I would be curious to hear your response to the address by Dr. Alley referenced above.
let’s just concentrate on the amount of CO2 man is responsibl for, and you can try to show how the scant mounts are supposedly so dangerous that we ‘must act now’ to reverse them- Some scientific evidence supporting your case woudl be nice- I’ve presented the evidences that show the amount we contribute is not ifnact a problem, nowhere near the problem that it;’s claimed to be, and explained why it isn’t- Let’s just first concentrate on addressing htis one issue first- I only have a limitte amount of time to reply each day
Noting will be come of this investigation as the Attorney will be told to just hand over the names of the whistleblowers at once before anything gets started and that he may keep his license practice law if he behaves.
Well CottShop..
I spent about an hour putting together a reply to your last post and when I went elswhere to find a source for my statement that millions of years ago the oceans were 37 degrees and highly acidic,I inadvertently lost my post…so you’re lucky..I haven’t the jam to do it all again and I’m sure it would be a waste of time..so for now I’ll just leave you with this link to a presentation by Richard B Alley who, coincidently, is from Penn State U. where he talks of the rise and fall of CO2 for the last few hundred thousand years..it’s really quite interesting and if you actually watch it you might actually learn something. Although you have proven yourself to be quite resistant so far.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Just for the record..whales aren’t fish..they are mammals.
And what in hell are talking about here in response to my statement about beetle kill in forests?
…”Egads- Talk about non sequitors- what has the fact that a mistake which allowed those beetles i n in hte first place got to do with ‘man caused’ global warming?…”
Pine beetles have been an integral part of the forests for hundreds of years..perhaps millennia. But as we no longer get minus 30 degree winter weather to control their numbers they have grown exponentially and have eaten their way thru millions of square miles of forests. A direct result of global warming. For brevity’s sake, I’ll ignore the ‘man made’ question for now. I really have no clue what you are talking about in your quote above which is a direct cut and paste from your post.
And as for citations and papers you have presented as evidence for you more outlandish and categorical statements, I find it impossible to accept as credible a proposed refutation that contains inane remarks like:
…”Why cannot 21st century scientists properly understand the basics of physics and chemistry that were known over a hundred years ago? It is due to the corrosive influence of an atheist worldview…”
I won’t go on..these are just a few of the innumerable half baked half truths and other totally unjustified remarks that you present as rational discourse.
I have suspicions that you are indeed a creationist as you still won’t answer the question. As a further aside..I’m curious..How does someone who believes the earth was created..I don’t know..6 or 7 thousand years ago hold that concept in their mind and at the same time seriously consider ice cores that are 6 or 8 hundred thousand years old without their head exploding? I realize it’s way off topic but I had to ask.
I would be curious to hear your response to the address by Dr. Alley referenced above.
Help !!!! My bullshit meter just exploded!
Lol- talk about ‘being resistant’ to evidence- It seems (since you’;re intent on making htis personal) that you and htose who desperately wish to pin the ‘blame for warming on man’ that anyhtign that ‘looks bad’ must be man’s fault due to CO2 levels (which again, man contributes a mere 11.9 ppm compared to the 320 ppm nature produces)
Pine beetles- oh my- man must be to blame- and it turns out you might actually be right here- however, NOT for the reasons you state- NOT due to global wamring (I see you’re glomming onto all the usual alarmist talking points of the AGW crowd)
“According to a recent study done by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, these outbreaks should not be regarded as a crisis: “There is no evidence to support the idea that current levels of bark beetle or defoliator activity in Colorado’s lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests are unnaturally high” and that “Historic photos and tree-ring evidence also document extensive insect outbreaks prior to the 20th century.”
Furthermore, there are more factors than just temperature which cause outbreaks of pine beetles. According to Dave Thom, a natural resources specialist with the Black Hills National Forest, the density of the forest is a major contributor,
“As the trees get more dense, they are less able to resist bark-beetle infestations. When you take increasingly dense trees and add the drought, the intersection causes weakened trees that are more susceptible to beetle attack. That phenomenon can happen regardless of a few degrees of change in climate, measured on a global scale.
These experts reveal that current outbreaks are neither unusual nor preventable by a few degrees of global cooling.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/19/pine-beetles-not-a-good-reason-for-climate-change-legislation/
[[Just for the record..whales aren’t fish..they are mammals.]]
I never said Whales were fish- I was simply pointing out that whales have made remarkable comebacks thanks to man’s efforts to curb overfishing them, and I pointed out htat while some larger fish might be in danger, there certainly isn’t any scientific evidence to support that ‘man-caused’ global wamrign is to blame
[[I won’t go on..]]
No- you ‘won’t go on (although you will) simpyl because the FACTS that are presented aren’t as important to you as the personal opinions of the writers of articles that are mingled in with the FACTS- Rather than simply focuss on the key facts that I’ve been tryign to argue- you wave and hand and dismiss them as erronious or ‘half-baked’ as you put it because the article writer has personal opinions about hte motives of AGW folks that lie OUTSIDE of the issues I’m discussing. this is a typical far left tactic- ignore the facts, and glom onto irrelevent statements- As I’ve said- I’ve argued these issues with the AGW crowd for a long time now, and as I’ve said, there is a key recurring tactic used by the AGW crowd- ignore the content, ignore the evidence, and go after the character of the writers for posting their opinions ALONGSIDE the relevent evidence being discussed- but only do so when it ‘looks good’ for your argument, and ignore any similar statememts when citing from papers you use to try to support your side-
Again, We’re talking specific scientific issues here- we’re NOT talking about someone’s feelings about subjects unrelated to the key principles of science-
IF you wish to address the FACTS, You let me know- but I’m not goign to sit aroudn while you dodge the FACTS of the case by trying to derail the arguments by pointing to issues irrelevent to the FACTS
[[I realize it’s way off topic]]
As are most of your ‘arguments’- I’m still waiting for for you to present scientific evidence supporting your claims and stay on topic- I’ve done so, but you keep evading the request to do so
[[it’s really quite interesting and if you actually watch it you might actually learn something.]]
I know a great deal about the rise and fall of CO2 i nthe past- the evidence does NOT support the claim that CO2 is the cause of warming- NOR does the evidence support the alarmist claim that man is ‘tipping hte balance’ of nature by producing an insignificant amount of CO2. I’ve cited many links hsowing that our contributions of CO2 are nowhere near the ‘crisis’ that alarmist’s claim that it is, nor is it causing ‘catastrophic acidification of our oceans’ as the alarmists would have everyone beleive it is.
You’ve also managed to dodge the facts of that issue as well- and managed to turn the to claims that warmign is somehow killing off fish, causing massive beetle outbreaks etc without givign any evidence that man’s scant CO2 contributions are the cause- you’re makign claims without providign evidence- it seems, per usual, per far left tactics, that those makign alarmist claims dmeand evidence from ‘the opposition’ while never feelign hte need to provide evidenc e to support your own claims- if you’re goign to engage i nthis type of ‘conversation’- then quite frankly I’m not interested- I’ve had my fill of such ‘conversations’ i n the past. IF however, you wish to provide evidence to back up your claims, I’ll concider addressign htem one or two points at a time
CottShop..
I’m done..I’ve spent more enjoyable moments on my front porch discussing things with Jehovah’s Witnesses..As far as references, I would once again point you to the link about the CO2 ..it really is worth it..I know you think you know what you are talking about but this video might make you think again..hope springeth eternal in the human breast…may the force be with you.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
CottShop..
I know, I know..I said I was done..I’m a sucker for punishment but I had to let you know that I did indeed go to the site which was dismissive of the pine beetle problem being connected to global warming and discovered this on the page..which you conveniently ignored of course.
Dave, Colorado writes:
The article and the many of the comments that follow are not aware of how wide spread and devastating this problem is. The article fails to mention that the mountain pine beetle was restricted to British Columbia in Canada and that the population and spread was kept in check by prolong periods of extreme cold each winter. A documented warming trend has allowed the the beetle to spread. It is a trend which some are choosing to ignore like people who choose to live on a flat earth.
carry on…
We’re doomed, unless we submit to the UN.
The science is settled. The debate is over. That train has left the station. All scientists agree.
Finally, we’re all on the same page. The glorious worker’s paradise awaits us, each worker equal to every other worker, except, of course, some workers will be more equal than others. But, that’s all right. The workers at the top are continually looking out for us, and they deserve to be a bit more equal. I can hardly wait to get me some of that equality.
If you actually knew anything about science you would know that science is never ‘settled’..but there really is no point in going there as it would mean you’d have to spend some time actually reading the science to understand this. And from reading your previous posts..in your case the train really has left the station.
“However if we look at the history of outbreaks in the western mountain states, the climate change argument is on very shaky ground. Montana has been hit by pine beetle outbreaks on and off since the 1920s so this is nothing new for the state. An even earlier outbreak is documented from 1894 to 1908 in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Since Co2 concentrations were considerably lower around the turn of the century, it does not follow that a reduction in Co2 will eliminate the pine beetle problem.
According to a recent study done by the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute, these outbreaks should not be regarded as a crisis: “There is no evidence to support the idea that current levels of bark beetle or defoliator activity in Colorado’s lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests are unnaturally high” and that “Historic photos and tree-ring evidence also document extensive insect outbreaks prior to the 20th century.”
Furthermore, there are more factors than just temperature which cause outbreaks of pine beetles. According to Dave Thom, a natural resources specialist with the Black Hills National Forest, the density of the forest is a major contributor,
“As the trees get more dense, they are less able to resist bark-beetle infestations. When you take increasingly dense trees and add the drought, the intersection causes weakened trees that are more susceptible to beetle attack. That phenomenon can happen regardless of a few degrees of change in climate, measured on a global scale.”
These experts reveal that current outbreaks are neither unusual nor preventable by a few degrees of global cooling.”
Again- if you have evidence linking man’s contributions of CO2 to pine beetle infestations- then present it
[[I’m done..I’ve spent more enjoyable moments on my front porch discussing things with Jehovah’s Witnesses..]]
mmm Hmmm- Jusy can’t help yourself eh? Gotta get those ‘last few digs’ in eh? Whatever- I didn’t htink you’d provide evidnce linking man’s production of CO2 to ANYTHING you’ve claimed yet- just more posturing and unsupported alarmist claims-
[[I’m done..]]
Oh darn, and I was just about to poison the tea
[...] Seinen Aufruf finden wir hier: [...]
[...] fälschten Daten, ließen Daten über Abkühlung der Erde unter Tisch fallen: The emails, among other things, show [...]
[...] does Mann have to say about former CIA agent Kent Clizbe sending emails to 27 Penn State faculty members last week? His quote from the article: Mann said he had no comment on Clizbe’s actions, [...]
[...] John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. He has made an important announcement at Climategate.com. [...]