"ClimateGate: The Movie"
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT

CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails

Ok seriously, here is a post everyone should read about the CONTEXT, I REPEAT THE CONTEXT, of some of the ClimateGate emails and some of the scientists.

Did I mention the CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT

Mann: “Dirty Laundry” from MBH98-99

I urge you to read the whole post AND the comments.

CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails
CONTEXT of the emails

I really enjoyed the podcast. Would love to hear more podcasts on other items/issues. Great listening!

Joyce - Thanks much. Greatly appreciated. Hope you'll keep tuning in. We try to make 'em fun and the info accessible. Even to folks like Konstantin!

Konstanin - You're unfamiliar, maybe, with the definition of the word "context"? No matter how many times it's typed? BTW, those snippets of selected emails concerning Mcintyure --- selected and posted by Mcintyre, one of the guys who was driving the CRU scientists crazy on a number of counts, as seen in the emails, even the ones he selected to post --- isn't actually "context".

Either way, still waiting for the evidence you've promised again and again, showing that these emails somehow reveal global warming science to be a scam, a hoax, a "gate" or however it is that you've incorrectly characterized them breathlessly in one note after another on multiple threads now here.

Surely, as the "jig is up", you and the other great scientists and thinkers out there can no doubt show us what the *real* science really is now, how the globe is not warming and how everything is actually hunky-dorey after all, and there's nothing to worry ourselves about. Right? I mean...Right???

OOP!!!!!!!

Group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil

http://rawstory.com/2009...tensive-ties-exxonmobil/

Brad @ comment #3,

Tell me where have I said "that these emails somehow reveal global warming science to be a scam, a hoax".

I think the problem you have is you're so polarized on the issue of global warming that you may have lost your objectivity for the issue of global warming.

If you read the post on Climate Audit, via the link I provided, you would see the context of the those particular emails. I have my doubts you even looked at the post and read the comments.

I guess on the issue of ClimateGate you will have to wait and see science community telling you basically what I'm telling you though you don't seem get it.

Maybe anyone who has a different opinion than you you lump into the "deniers" camp.

Konstantin @ 4 wrote:

Tell me where have I said "that these emails somehow reveal global warming science to be a scam, a hoax".

Konstantin on 12/1/09 @ 5:11pm PT:

What CRU and the IPCC is apparently guilty of is excluding scientific papers from the peer review process and therefore puuting the whole IPCC and climate change science in question.

Konstantin on 12/3/09 @ 2:10pm PT:

I'm sure you see that what the ClimateGate clique is doing is not science but politics and propaganda.

Konstantin on 12/3/09 @ 3:43pm PT:

you don't seem to have the scientific understanding of climate science or climate models (general circulation models or GCMs).
For example I don't think you, Des, and others understand how useless they really are.

Other than that --- and much more that I didn't have the time or interest in searching for to quote back to you here --- you're right. I stand corrected. You didn't say "that these emails somehow reveal global warming science to be a scam, a hoax."

Konstantin, please waste no more time on this with Brad. He has "vested" interests in protecting Barbara Boxer's Climate Change investment portfolio in repayment for her support for his election reform. Hence the origin of the Green Report.

Brad @ comment #6

You've probably been working too hard and seeing things in comments where they don't exist.
Do those comments really mean to you scam and hoax?

I don't know what else to tell you unless you want lessons in differential equations, statistics, satellite sensors, ...?
You're obviously just going by what misleading apologists for IPCC and others. I don't think you understand science much though I guess you don't have to except for the Green Report.
Guess you'll just have to hear the same things I've been trying to tell you from the very people seem to be listening to now. It's ok though you don't have to apologize in the future and I won't say I told you so either. Not worth the extra time continuing this now.

Brad please ignore the part where I said "It's ok though you don't have to apologize in the future and I won't say I told you so either."
Sorry, now that I think about it that doesn't sound like a nice thing to say. But you're still wrong though.

I have spent several hours straight going through the data (which I already gave the link for)

At first I though, I'll pop in, find something bad, and rapidly spew it out. Quickly being countered by Brad or DES with, "put in context." While I agree the context matters, it's also clearly a tool being used to silence criticism.

(further more I fucked up and posted the guts of an ELF that doesn't matter and in fact makes me look like a dumb ass who doesn't know a fucking thing about code.)

But I sucked it up, and admit it.
THAT SINGLE POST WITH THE ELF HEADER IS CRAP.
- Fine.
THAT TWO POSTS OF AN EMAIL, AND THEN THE HEADER HAVE NO CONTEXT. - Fine.

But when talking about CODE there is no such context games which can be played. A filter is a filter, it does what you tell it to do. I highly suggest people scrutinize the filters, as it will be in them that many errors will creep in.

I also am left questioning the RAW DATA. While I don't suspect folks out in the field doing core samples are bad people, however what is later done with the data can determine malicious intent.

I'm going to go out on my own here and say, that while Brad and DES want us to put it in context, which on the surface doesn't appear to be an unreasonable request, I caution such invisible restriction diminishes the seriousness, and filters out things which should at this point be made 100% transparent in my opinion.

In Context, I see several forces at play which disturb me.

1. Collaboration on destroying email
2. Questionable computer models
3. Shitty code looking for specific results
4. Many attempts to hide data
5. Targeting individuals, and limiting access
6. Conspiracy and procedural plans to use against all "deniers"
7. FTP Website data obfuscation games
8. General data obfuscation games
9. Denial of data
10. Milking the system for personal benefit
11. Awareness that their work is being used to base decisions of "not billions, but trillions of dollars" at Copenhagen.

There's different forces and people in play. I would be very cautious of people commenting that everyone involved should be arrested.

Some I would say have nothing to do with conspiracy, but just want to contribute to science. e.g. a Scientist

In short the whole thing is a questionable clusterfuck which appears to me to be the basis for decision to be made in our behalf in Copenhagen 15 which will have consequences bothe legally and monetarily. However, with that said, the validity of the entire package should also be questioned. e.g. did someone edit any of the files, why are emails in .txt format and some (I found three, which really didn't have any context to begin with) in unix mbox format. It the whole thing real or just put together to paint a picture? So there's conflicts to go all around. To sit there and preach to us about how it's settled science and how we should or shouldn't interpret such information in context, or out of context is disingenuous at best. For example if something has no context, that doesn't mean it automatically should be sent to /dev/null. There are BROKEN contexts as well.

I have not followed AGW over the years, frankly I didn't care with all the other corruption going on. So basically my knowledge on this matter is based on several things.

A. I see climate change, I believe the Earth is changing, I think there is Global Warming, but I never have been convinced Man was the cause of it, and therefore I currently believe man can not do anything about it, and COPE15 is basically a financial, and sovereign nation status rip off.

B. Currently, I have spent only around 24 hours looking at this material, using my existing skills in programming and searching.

C. I find loads of crap on both sides of this issue.

I never looked at what anyone else said about the details of this crap until I was forced to, and so I have come up with MY Opinions on this and I have NOT been influenced by outside opinion by either side.

With that said, and since I am already burned out on this crap, I have now looked outside, and out of all the noise, I see one voice (I don't know if it's a D or and R and don't care) who pretty much sums up what I found in these emails, without anyone imposing "IN CONTEXT" requirements on my own intuition and my own small and incomplete analysis. This one voice is...

Rep. Miller on ClimateGate and Cap and Trade

I absolutely agree, although I think she may have confused HCL with CRU servers, but I don't expect her to understand about servers, and IP address's, FTP sites, etc. She does however convey the main point of my concern.

The United States shouldn't be signing anything right now, based on this current data.

You want to want to put it all on the table and open it ALL up to the world to re-evaluate fine, but it's not proven science to me at this point in time currently.

Why any of this was either classified or hidden in the first place is a giant red flag. Considering the decisions to be made at COPE15 I don't buy one bit of this crap that Scientists just want to protect their precious data. Their precious data is being used for major decisions and all this hints at cloak and dagger shit, spins the entire matter into the toilet until it can be proven one way or the other.

If they continue to work on the project in secret, I wouldn't trust a damn thing.

I also don't see anyone mention HAARP You can't tell me RF doesn't effect things! You want to call this Conspiracy too? The place exists, it runs, and that much RF does fuck things up!

I also don't see anyone mention chem trails. Who really knows what is going on here, but NO Climate Scientists seems to care. Instead they call it fucking Conspiracy Theory. Fuck that, all you need to fucking do is LOOK UP. The shit is up there, if you look, even I have seen it! What it does? I don't know. The science isn't settled there either!

In my opinion the Science for AGW is not settled.

Anyone representing the United States at Copenhagen saying the science is settled is full of crap, if not potentially a criminal. (with the crimes being attempt to screw with the monetary system, and usurp government itself)

Why is everything so secret? Every fucking time we see things classified secret we find time after fucking time agenda (and crimes) being abused.

So our weather is secret.
Our monetary system is secret.
The NSA/At&T FIOS splitter is secret.
Electronic votes are secret.

I'll say it even if it pisses everyone off here.

Global warming being caused by man, is an excuse to profit and may very well be an agenda of the Globalists, for creating new taxes to finance and maintain control over ALL governments.

Frankly, with all this shit I seen over the past 10 years, I don't trust anyone anymore.

It sure looks like wherever electronics are being used, they are being exploited and abused.

From taser to voting, from spying to microwave pain weapons, from database exploitation to financial fraud, from the monetary system, to the broadcast spectrum, from the FCC, to the DOE. And I barely scratch the surface!

I'm still with you on outlawing electronic vote tabulation devices and poll books, but this AGW thing is not settled. And I would warn anyone just jumping in not to take a side blindly. I already got stung pulling that shit myself.

"Surely, as the "jig is up", you and the other great scientists and thinkers out there can no doubt show us what the *real* science really is now, how the globe is not warming and how everything is actually hunky-dorey after all, and there's nothing to worry ourselves about. Right? I mean...Right???"

No not right. You see to forget there are several groups here.

The way I see it your ignoring several points of view.

1. Global Warming - Cause Unknown
2. Global Warming - Caused by man/co2
3. No Global Warming Period

And I will add a 4th and 5th

4. HAARP
5. Chem Trails

I don't see how you can call the CRU/IPCC/COPE15 work science without considering 4, and 5 which is real place in #4 Alaska, and real things anyone can look up in the sky to see in #5.

Again I barely scratch the surface. But as everyone here agrees, TIME WILL TELL.

Dear Friends at Bradblog,
I am so intensely satisfied that someone has finally brought the chemtrail issue to the fore. I actually prefer the use of the phrase...international aerosol program. This is a devastating and real thing that has nothing to do with "conspiracies." A simple search of the term "geoengineering" will yield hundreds of schemes by a variety of entities to manually adjust the climate. Understanding this we move on to the already deployed program of unmarked jets dispersing aerosol particulates into the troposphere. It would be wise of everyone engaging this conversation to do their homework on the chemtrail issue, look up everyday, watch the skies carefully, use their common sense and make their own judgements. The cocktail of unknown substances being dispersed right over our heads is alarming at best and criminal without a doubt. Watch the so-called "regular jet traffic" and ask yourself these questions:
1. Why are the jets unmarked and often nearly invisible....many don't reflect light even in direct sunlight.
2. Why will no known air traffic professional identify these craft?
3.Why do the trails often linger and expand into full cloud cover appearing with hideous bulges as the materials exit the craft?
4. Why, when the airlines are in such a slow period, are their score upon score of sorties in places where their are no air traffic highways in the sky?
5.Why do the jets fly so close to one another often intersecting at dangerously close junctures?
6. Why do the weather men and women appear so completely clueless when asked to explain the jet induced "cloud" cover?

I could go on and on.

The time is most definitely now to end the charade on this activity and put it squarely on the table at Copenhagen and everywhere else man made pollutants are being discussed. The intentional and criminal alteration of the Earth's natural forces has been going on at an accelerated rate via the aerosol program for over 10 years and the lying must stop. "Climategate" only reinforces my opinion that something in this debate stinks like a dead rat.

The film that is best to get up to speed on this is Clifford Carnicom's AEROSOL CRIMES, I am sure it is available on line.

You simply cannot get to a discussion of Anthropogenic Global Warming without addressing the CHEMTRAILS first...period.
Global Patriot Worker

VIDEOS: THE EXPERTS EXPLAIN THE GLOBAL WARMING MYTH

Note: I really liked Willie Soon's video, as it really hit home with me, "having the courage to say no", wow that's just about exactly where I was 24 hours ago. There was a point yesterday, where I was actually SCARED to speak up. I had to sit back for a couple hours and meditate on it, finally my heart said, GAIA isn't going to punish me for speaking out. And I didn't get any disagreement from my spirit guides either. So boom I tried to jump in like I always do with electronic voting machines, but lo behold, I am not an expert and so I am quickly screwing up.

Now look, I been pounded by this computer model crap for how many years now? On radio, On tv, in my magazines, on websites. And... my friends right here on Bradblog , I never really cared about the whole issue. It doesn't mean I didn't think the world was not having drastic weather changes. I saw that.

But NOW... this crap in Copenhagen is a big deal, I doubt anyone here HAS all the details of Copenhagen, what if they sign it what does it mean exactly. What laws are going to have more authority my three branch government with it's broken Constitution? What new taxes on what products. I don't want to hear a bunch of "aw don't worry about it Phil" crap. It's crap, just like these computer models are.

I showed my mom who works for the Corps of Engineers, I showed her the 1000 + files in
/FOIA/Mail and while "we both agree" a LOT of the chatter is normal office chatter.

She was hard pressed to find anything bad in the few (like 10 emails) I showed her. It's sad because she doesn't have the time to waste on this shit.

ON the other hand...

It seems the Corps Of Engineers has the same problem with these new kids and their fucking computer simulations. And she immediately latched on to that. I don't know if this generation of kids understands, back when all these dams and infrastructure was built, we didn't have all this computer simulation crap for college kids to play on. And it was only into the 70's we started with the IBM punch cards.

They did engineering on paper and pencil, old school. Further more another USACE engineer I knew "Charlie Cook" (now deceased RIP) could probably look at problems with his eye, and come up with something strong enough to deal with a problem, like daming a river for example.

He literally breathed and visualized engineering and I am not putting that lightly.

(Side note: even I back in the 80's did my electronics with pencil and paper, not these fucking casio calculators I see everyone using now.)

My mom didn't have time to go through every single piece (understandable), consisting of 1000's of emails, and furthermore I am the closest thing to understanding fortran in the room. So it ended there. However I found it fascinating she picked up almost immediately on the computer simulation work.

My honest opinion was she would "feel the same thing I did about being cloak and daggerish" but she didn't pick up on that. Perhaps it's the density of the mail, or the unfamiliarity of the tools I use to analyze the data. She didn't pick up on that. But the Computer Simulation stuff, was commented on in almost the first 5 minutes.

I know CRU uses different terminology for this, personally, I don't care anymore what CRU thinks, they have issues and frankly can't be trusted with out some kind of external unbiased oversight.

I am only putting another angle on this.
Feel free to toss it out as it has no bearing.

This will be the last bit of personal information on this matter I will give. I will respond and reply when I see challenges but basically I am fucking done with this whole topic, I don't enjoy this kind of work, and it isn't fun, and it is now cutting into my deadlines.

I ABSOLUTELY GET IT NOW!!!

Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

I think the documentation of ClimateGate is larger than most people realize. These are a couple sites whose analysis I have found most detailed and interesting:

http://ecotretas.blogspo...pressor-de-verdades.html

http://bishophill.square...climate-cuttings-33.html

Also, speaking of the manipulation of code:

http://cubeantics.com/20...hen-humans-tell-them-to/

(I tried to fix your links and translate EcoTretas)

I think the documentation of ClimateGate is larger than most people realize. These are a couple sites whose analysis I have found most detailed and interesting:

(From Eco Tretas)
Rolo Compressor de Verdades Inconvenientes

Bishop Hill - Climate cuttings 33

Also, speaking of the manipulation of code:
The Proof Behind the CRU Climategate Debacle: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

Xham said @ 7:

Konstantin, please waste no more time on this with Brad. He has "vested" interests in protecting Barbara Boxer's Climate Change investment portfolio in repayment for her support for his election reform. Hence the origin of the Green Report.

Doggonit, Xham! Now you've gone and told the whole world about the secret plan that Babs and I had so carefully worked out! She was supposed to put forward an election reform plan that I wouldn't support and that would never come to the floor, then, several years later I was to start the Green News Report in support of a bill she wouldn't actually write, or become a sponsor, of until a year or so later, and then I'd carefully not support it either.

Our plan was so perfect until you had to go and blab about it to the whole world! Thanks for nothing! What next? You'll let the whole world know about the payments I receive from both Karl Rove and Barack Obama for disparaging each of them?!

With sharp investigators like yourself out there, it's little wonder you've been able to uncover that global warming is a hoax! But how will bloggers like myself be able to make a living if you keep revealing all of my cunning schemes to the whole wide world?! Have a heart, man!

Our plan was so perfect until you had to go and blab about it to the whole world! Thanks for nothing! What next? You'll let the whole world know about the payments I receive from both Karl Rove and Barack Obama for disparaging each of them?!

Heh

In my inbox I find this treat.

Dear Phillip,

Remember Karl Rove?

The Republican political operative who worked with Secretaries of State in Florida and Ohio to purge eligible voters from the registration rolls and prevent those on the rolls from casting a ballot and having it accurately counted?

Well, it looks like he wants to do for the voters of California what he did for the voters of Florida and Ohio.

According to this November 22 article from the Contra Costa Times, and this November 2 article from the Sacramento Bee, Damon Dunn, the Republican candidate who wants to be California's next Secretary of State, decided to register to vote in California and run for office shortly after consulting with Rove.

Advertising Rove's involvement in a state like California would be laughable if it weren't for one thing - Rove has a knack for engineering winning campaigns.

Help prevent Karl Rove from putting the next Katherine Harris or Ken Blackwell in the Secretary of State's office - contribute toward Debra's re-election today!

https://secure.actblue.c...unnrove?refcode=dunnrove

California has made great strides under Secretary Bowen's leadership to make elections more secure, accurate, reliable, and accessible. Now is the time to keep moving forward, not let the national
Republican Party take us back to 2000 and 2004.

Help Debra prepare for this challenge - contribute to her re-election campaign today!

https://secure.actblue.c...unnrove?refcode=dunnrove

Thank you for your support as we work to re-elect Debra Bowen!

Steve Barkan
Senior Advisor
Secretary of State Debra Bowen 2010

Sources:

1. "Recovering non-voter enters Secretary of State race," Contra Costa Times, November 22, 2009
http://www.contracostati...ay-area-news/ci_13852800
2. "Campaign neophyte aims high for secretary of state job", Sacramento Bee, November 27, 2009
http://www.sacbee.com/to...ories/story/2352319.html

**********
Paid for by Debra Bowen for Secretary of State 2010
FPPC ID #1293623

Donate: http://www.actblue.com/page/dunnrove

-=-=-=-

Seems like last time I was talking about Debra Bowen a couple months ago, I was scratching my head asking myself why aren't the machines gone yet?

On the other hand, anything from turd blossom is treasonous at best. I don't look forward to a plethora of law change time bombs, by the masters of the craft.

Just one response to Phil @ 10, in reply to:

I see climate change, I believe the Earth is changing, I think there is Global Warming, but I never have been convinced Man was the cause of it, and therefore I currently believe man can not do anything about it

Setting aside whether climate change is helped or caused by man, your logic there may need a bit of re-thinking, Phil.

Man doesn't cause it to rain, or for it to be cold outside, but man has done something about that, haven't we? (Eg. built houses, raincoats, umbrellas, artificial indoor heating systems, etc.)

I believe it's perfectly fair to be agnostic on the "Anthropogenic" (man-caused) part of AGW, or even in dispute of it (for whatever reason, sound or otherwise), while still recognizing the need for man to take action in response to it.

I believe you'll discover upon reflection that the "logic" you use to charge that "Man was [not] the cause of it, and therefore ... man can not do anything about it" is fairly well fundamentally flawed.

Phil, I can appreciate how examining and evaluating the vast volume of research is like trying to drink from a fire hose.

Make that ten or twenty+ fire hoses all at once, because what we're really talking about here are literally thousands of studies over decades of research from multiple earth systems disciplines that each have multiple lines of inquiry. And that doesn't even touch on the programming, which as you discovered is a whole 'nother fire hose all on its own.

I say this as a reminder, again, that the CRU data and their computer models are not the only scientific evidence presented. I hope you will also evaluate the scientific evidence in all these other disciplines as well (over time, of course!).

That said, it is simply impossible for a layperson to fully 'grok' (thanks, 99) ALL of the data from ALL of these disciplines. As noted in the link that Konstantin provided above re: Pielke and Schmidt, even experts in one discipline are not considered qualified to comment on data from other disciplines. That's why we hire scientists. That's why we hire doctors, lawyers, and other experts, whose fields are further divided into sub-specialties due to the volume of information.

Somewhere in the fire hose of commentary across the web over the last few weeks, this analogy really made logical sense to put this serious breach of conduct into perspective: 'If these emails came from a small group of cancer researchers at one institution, would it discredit the entire field of cancer research?"

These multiple lines of evidence point to the deeply oversimplified but nonetheless logical conclusion that pouring ever-increasing amounts of waste into our biosphere will have consequences, many of which we know we don't yet fully understand. The majority of the experts in these diverse fields say the data indicates we are headed for trouble.

Frankly, it would be great if they are wrong. Based on what we already know of how Nature deals with species that overtax the carrying capacity of their environment, they warn we really shouldn't wait until the theoretical becomes manifest to find out.

If you find scientific evidence that this is not the case, please share it. More information (linked and sourced, from reputable groups, data-reliant, identifying which is from scientists v. commentators) is always welcomed for greater understanding.

I believe it's perfectly fair to be agnostic on the "Anthropogenic" (man-caused) part of AGW, or even in dispute of it (for whatever reason, sound or otherwise), while still recognizing the need for man to take action in response to it.

Brad, my mom works for the Corps of Engineers, you don't think I know there's a need for levies, dams, and other water projects and infrastructure? Hell yes there is. Sacramento, could be worse than New Orleans. Where I live right here, if the Sacramento River ever broke I would be 35 feet under water really quickly. I SLEEP within short distance of a life vest! To be honest the only one I really hear talk about it is Doris Matsui eh? (I never wanted her to have her husbands office) But yeah an earthquake could re-landscape Sacramento pretty quick with all these rivers and dams.

I ain't saying Global Warming is a fraud.

I am saying that what it freaking looks like to me, is part of the science has been tuned to reach a result, which can then be used to leverage cap and trade at COPE15, for our bankster friends to profit from while we all suffer from the consequences.

The way I see we still haven't clarified the several points of view.

Global Warming [ Fraud | Real ]

Choose your favorite sub reason[s]

Cause Unknown
Caused by man
natural co2
Cause by HAARP
Cause by Chem Trails
Cause by bad Science
Cause by Code Rigged
Cause by Profit from Carbon Tax / Cap and Trade
Cause by Global Control, limited government interference
Cause by NWO, total government replacement
Cause by Fraud Period All of it

And any combination can be mixed
Maybe it's better in the way you said it

Other than that, all is well and global warming has finally been exposed as a "hoax"

That way I can respond by saying, "I'm sure glad we found out about this hoax, I hope they don't sign anything in COPE15 allowing our banksters and foreign countries to feast on the taxpayers again.

See, you have to fix the language, cause it ain't working. Mine's bad, and your's is too. -imo

Maybe it would be better to say the Climategate AGREEMENTS at COPE15 are partially based on a hoax and shouldn't be signed, while ongoing efforts to find out the truth of what causes Global Warming continue.

That way we're not bashing each other with terminology which puts folks off.

I hope I am still your friend.

I just disagree about this AWG and don't want banksters or anyone profiting on it from tricks at COPE.

(do you not deny all those links I showed you are the our pals the banksters lining up for the feeding trough, just waiting for a COPE decision?)

That's not unreasonable. They will profit

Furthermore, what now do we do with the existing science? Like the senator said, back to the lab...
I ain't saying we shouldn't keep trying to study either. I even give suggestions for points of study which have been completely ignored as conspiracy, when the reality is nobody has officially been looking into it.

HAARP is physical place located in Alaska, hardly a conspiracy theory.

Chem Trails (Or better said, Aerial Spraying) is not conspiracy either, all one need do is look up.

The science is not settled.

Phil

For the tenth time: It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be BOTH. We can fight the plutocrats trying to screw us more AND try to mitigate the ravages of climate change. Worst case scenario would be that we prevented monsters from further enslaving us AND ended up with a cleaner planet. Darn.

It can be, almost certainly is, anthropogenic AND the high finance guys will make global fascism out of it. Nobody seems to be mentioning that it's even more plausible the plutocrats would figure out a way to make trillions off of real disasters than that they would make them up, or pull false flags to get their way. Why can't the science be right, or largely correct, AND plutocrats are trying to make a killing on it?

I don't get why their self-enrichment perfidies in regard to global warming seems to be debunking the need to try to do something about the climate catastrophe in progress. Are people so polarized they can't think beyond the surface anymore?

It isn't either or. It just so seriously isn't.

THIS HAS ALL THE EARMARKS OF ANOTHER MASS EXTINCTION EVENT, AND IT VERY, VERY PLAUSIBLY HAS AT LEAST A LARGE ANTHROPOGENIC COMPONENT.

Doing whatever we can about it in no way means we have to submit to the fascists' attempts to use it against us for even more money. Their solution to the climate crisis, obviously, is depopulation, which would work as well as cleaning up. Our solution is to clean up.

Again, worst case scenario for all this effort, should we succeed, is we have a clean and healthy habitat... irrespective of anything else.

CLEANING UP IS NOT PREDICATED ON FEEDING PLUTOCRATS' BANK ACCOUNTS.

Am I getting through to anybody?

And, even if it has NO anthropogenic component, that STILL doesn't mean we are helpless in the face of it. There are things we might do to mitigate the death toll.

When you take out the what-is-causing-it part of the polemic, you have hugely MORE scientific and lay agreement.

IT REMAINS THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Whether or not they would be successful is MOOT, because we have everything to gain in the attempt and everything to lose in the failure to attempt it.

CRIKEY!

If people don't stop being obtuse about this, I'm going to go about finding ways to enlarge my font and put blinking neon style code in here! I'm still working on ways to electrify the keyboards of polemicists and unreasonable greedheads and trolls.

Why can't the science be right, or largely correct, AND plutocrats are trying to make a killing on it?

Nice 99, I almost didn't catch that.

Here's the problem I have even before I saw all these leaked or hacked emails.

Ignoring the code (nice work!), I am left with. (personally)

HAARP and Aerial Spraying.
no charts, no data, no fishing expeditions

How can Science call itself Science if it doesn't look at those as well?

Phil, I just want to draw a clear line of distinction between the scientific evidence vs. the policy implications and proposals. They are not the same thing.

For the record, we have taken no position on the policy proposals currently on the table, and encourage everyone to seek out the full spectrum of commentary (and supporting data) on these policy proposals from reputable sources engaged in reasoned, evidence-based, dispassionate discussion of the policies rather than the political punditry.

I'd also like to repeat something from an earlier thread regarding the proposed carbon trading market: you're already living amidst a "multi-billion dollar money-making bonanza for the financial establishment" --- the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable industry in the history of the world ($45 billion for ExxonMobil alone in just three months in 4Q 2008), from whom you buy the energy to live and to whom you give $79 billion in federal subsidies every year from your tax dollars, an industry which has already spent a record amount lobbying against any policy proposals that would affect their business model: continue polluting for free, banking the profits, leaving the consequences and costs of clean up and health impacts to you, the taxpayer.

[edited to add link with supporting evidence re: fossil fuel industry profits]

How can Science call itself Science if it doesn't look at those as well?

Science can call itself science while still having no access to shit the government is keeping secret. Don't be an ox! There is plenty, plenty, plenty data. And if the fears about HAARP and chemtrails are founded on anything actual, THAT IS ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSATION, but succeeding in shutting those down, STILL doesn't make the too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere problem go away... especially since the data the scientists do have indicates the problem is explainable without consideration of HAARP and chemtrails. It means that, while it would be nice to know what is up with those two phenomena, they don't bear on the matter of whether we should mitigate our emissions of gasses that destabilize the planet's ability to keep temperatures within the range where living things can thrive.

I AM NOT IGNORING THAT COMPUTERS DO LIE WHEN HUMANS TELL THEM TO!!!!!

I said:

Again, worst case scenario for all this effort, should we succeed, is we have a clean and healthy habitat... irrespective of anything else.
[emphasis added]

That includes the prospect that this is a huge scam by greedheads who want to make money off a cleaner planet. If that is the case, and it's a stretch, it's the first decent thing the greedheads have ever done! And don't give me any shit about them scaring us to death with it, because obviously it takes making us scared shitless to do anything about the toxic messes we make.

IT REMAINS THAT THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Yeah agreed, but signing COPE15 ain't it. Carbon tax ain't it, Cap and Trade ain't it.

Beefing up levies, earthquake proofing dams, moving away from coastlines?

Or should Obama kick us into the industrial solar energy revolution, and slowly replace dirty energy sources. For god sakes we aren't even making the wind blades in America! Back when GM and all that crap went south, we should have had an assembly line of solar panels up and running. At least Solar is a real product as opposed to a worthless CDS! Shouldn't have spent stimulus should have saved it for food shelter and clothing.

I am watching as our leaders screw around playing games with the monetary system, and are about to bring that crashing down as they are running out of tricks and becoming powerless against the market forces.

That will be a storm which will make the Climate Changes in 200 years completely moot.

A good hedge would be unlimited solar energy. But it appears we don't have leadership for such visions.

Obama just made a deal with India for green jobs.

He's fucking us for the globalizing plutocrats.

So what? Boot him out along with the globalizing plutocrats, but don't back off the clean up of the planet because they're trying to get a lock on global feudalism.

And, in fact, an ice age may be already nearly upon us... which has been the POINT of freaking out about all this... that the greenhouse gasses would first hold in the heat and then get so bad as to block it, causing an ice age.

Just at this moment it seems more plausible to me because it is a gorgeous sunny day here, in a long string of them, with an ICY breeze. I feel like I need a snow suit unless I stand directly in the sunlight.

Groovy if this putative mini ice age might be small enough to create a correction that mitigates the extent of the extinction, but, well, don't bank on it.

ANYTHING THAT SAVES POLAR BEARS IS GOOD....

Science can call itself science while still having no access to shit the government is keeping secret.

I don't believe it can. It would be flawed science, knowing you never looked, nothing can ever be proven, and in addition you get plausible deniability.

There is plenty, plenty, plenty data.
I am not even going to say anything....

And if the fears about HAARP and chemtrails are founded on anything actual, THAT IS ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSATION

And early on, in this, I said I reserve the right to change my opinion if something can be proven.

And if it is ANTHROPOGENIC CAUSATION from the effects of HAARP or AERIAL SPARYING, then turn the power off, and stop spraying. Cost = $0 Disaster averted.

I think we are stuck in a full on loop here.

NO, Phil. NO.

It does not mean the science is bunk. It does not affect the science that has already shown other anthropogenic cause is enough to explain it. And CERTAINLY your HAARP and chemtrails stuff was not in effect from the beginning of the industrial revolution, which is when the gasses started trending upward.

You have not taken into account that, if they are related in any way to climate change, they may be secret efforts to COMBAT it. All we know about them is that they are weird, and possibly climate-related. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCIENCE TO MAKE THE SCIENCE SOLID ENOUGH TO SHOW THE NEED TO ACT. In fact, the very most that could be gotten from their inclusion in the science, if they were related in any way, is to STRENGTHEN the case for cleaning up our act. We already know they cannot be THE cause. That has been made abundantly clear, EVEN if the science is all bunk and this has all been a clean dirty trick to turn global warming into fun, profit and a cleaner and healthier habitat.

It is NOT as though all this science is brand new. We've been at it for fifty years or more. The globalization guys can have at most kicked in on this somewhere in the last twenty years. Don't let your richly warranted mistrust of them make your knee jerk up and break your teeth from bashing you in the chin!

YOU might be stuck in a full on loop, but I'm not.

It is NOT as though all this science is brand new. We've been at it for fifty years or more.

I been going at it for two days only.

The globalization guys can have at most kicked in on this somewhere in the last twenty years. Don't let your richly warranted mistrust of them make your knee jerk up and break your teeth from bashing you in the chin!

not the tooth, hell I just replaced it.

they may be secret efforts to COMBAT it.
"MAY BE" is not Science. It's a guess.

~poof~

Yes we are.
We are looped.

It's like trying to convert a god fearing christian (your brand choice) to wiccan (your brand choice)

Your trying to tell me you can't look at my teachings because your god will punish you in the lake of fire if you view any outside materials, and I can't explain anything until you do actually do.

Looped. Dead end.

I'll just stop out of respect.

I'm someone who has been paying close attention since approximately 1969. I have no religion. We are not looped. You are going off two days' looking and so you are not working off a full deck. Go look for the old science on this stuff. See if you can't get the whole picture. And don't forget about all the other overriding benefits of cleaning up this shit hole while you're about it, because all those facts make it worthwhile even if the goofy notions about a vast scientific industrial financial complex conspiracy somehow turn out to have had ANY merit, even if they explain everything, which I can assure you from forty years of close attention they ABSOLUTELY do not.

Just want to add a point of data to this:

>That will be a storm which will make the Climate Changes in 200 years completely moot.

Eh, not really. The process of ocean acidification is documented and accelerating. (And this is just one subset of the many earth systems disciplines, as we've been saying)

One critical impact of this chemical reaction is that, simply put, the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (a carbon sink); too much CO2 causes a chemical reaction that creates carbonic acid. This is basic chemistry. An overabundance of carbonic acid dissolves the shells of the microscopic marine organisms at the bottom of the ocean food chain. This has rather large implications for the ocean ecosystem, and for humanity, that are on trend to occur sooner rather than later if we keep up with biz as usual --- like within our lifetimes. Seriously, this isn't only about money.

And I am looking at your "teachings" and telling you they're beside the point. The point is that even if there is no anthropogenic cause of global warming, the things we'll have to do to mitigate the damages, real or imagined, because we can't prove they're imagined, also stop a whole lot of the toxic messes that have been proven to make ecosystems and humans sicken and die. The worst case scenario is we have a cleaner and healthier habitat. No matter what else is also true.

And, okay, good, if yer done, because I have a life that needs some attention badly just now.

xoxoxox

And, just so, DES, just so.

And I am looking at your "teachings" and telling you they're beside the point.

A DEAD END LOOP IT IS THEN INDEED.

Well, later, I'm back to my not so full deck.

sweet.

Have a nice life. I think this ends my Bradblog friendship.

Your putting fucking words in my mouth.

We are done. Not looped.

Like seriously. DONE.

Phil @ 21 said:

Maybe it would be better to say the Climategate AGREEMENTS at COPE15 are partially based on a hoax and shouldn't be signed

No. It wouldn't be better to say that. Unless you can revel the "hoax" you're referring to. So far, I've yet to see one.

I hope I am still your friend.

Of course you are. You're just my friend who is wrong on this matter. Much like many members of my family, who I still love, despite the fact that they are similarly dreadfully wrong on one issue after another as well.

Comment on Des's comment #20

Des said: "That said, it is simply impossible for a layperson to fully 'grok' (thanks, 99) ALL of the data from ALL of these disciplines. As noted in the link that Konstantin provided above re: Pielke and Schmidt, even experts in one discipline are not considered qualified to comment on data from other disciplines."

1st grok is the geekiest term I've seen on BradBlog.
2. I disagree. Even though the average layperson can't 'grok' all the data from the research, a layperson knowledgeable in science and some of the climate science can follow the reasoning and conversation of the actual expert climate scientists involved or even climate scientists that are accurately reporting what the experts are saying.
That being said, you can use this as a guide for following the climate science: almost everything the media reports both for and against global warming is BS. You can ignore all of it. Read what the real experts are saying.

Des said: "Frankly, it would be great if they are wrong. Based on what we already know of how Nature deals with species that overtax the carrying capacity of their environment, they warn we really shouldn't wait until the theoretical becomes manifest to find out."

I not saying Des is responsible for this point of view but this point of view being pushed on the public, i.e. 'overtax the carrying capacity of their environment' is very old, even going back to the time of Plato where the elites used that line of argument of the masses of the people oppressing Mother Earth, although they didn't apply it to themselves the elites but just to the rest of humanity the ones beneath them.
It's a psychological manipulation meant to make people blame themselves just like abusers make their victims think they are to blame.

Agent 99 said in comment #22: "CLEANING UP IS NOT PREDICATED ON FEEDING PLUTOCRATS' BANK ACCOUNTS."

Actually I think it is and is happening.
Look at all the bogus solar and wind farm projects.
They report what a great Utopia they will make the world though they never tell you the numbers that matter in energy projects. If they're so great and they will enrich the economy why do they such huge huge subsidies?
You can see some of the criticisms at:
http://bravenewclimate.com
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com

Agent 99 said in comment #22: "CLEANING UP IS NOT PREDICATED ON FEEDING PLUTOCRATS' BANK ACCOUNTS."

Also energy projects like solar and wind farms CONCENTRATE control and power into a few locations and into the hands of a few companies.

Energy from small scale nuclear like thorium nuclear plants make countries INDEPENDENT of the global elites and let countries determine their own future since they can be threatened by the empires withholding resources from them.

http://bravenewclimate.com
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com

Everyone, especially Brad, Des, and Agent99, and everyone else

Please watch this youtube video which makes it clear in terms you can understand why solar and wind farms will NOT help the economy but hurt it.
Brad and Des why don't you post stuff like this on GNR or the main articles?)

by David MacKay
How Many Light Bulbs? - From Cambridge Ideas

P.S. You can also download the professor's book which he makes available for free download at his site:
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

This is David MacKay's blog

http://withouthotair.blogspot.com

There is a massive change underway in the mobile media market as it becomes unshackled from the operators’ portals that have dominated it for a decade, all without having made any significant inroads into the content use of mobile users. The new capped data packages, fuelled by further competition, will see a total revamp of the mobile media market. It will no longer be based on portals but on direct services by content and services providers via open source phones and mobile-friendly Internet-based services. The next step is the continued emergence of m-commerce and in particular m-payment services. 

Also energy projects like solar and wind farms CONCENTRATE control and power into a few locations and into the hands of a few companies.

Not even a total dope would make this statement, Konstantin.

That is outright horseshit, and completely transparently so. Solar and wind technologies can go just about anywhere, do go just about anywhere, from a diverse little cosmos of companies all over the place. Certainly in the future there will be large farms owned by big companies, probably even the companies that monopolize our energy now, and would also monopolize it if you ever got your precious planet-melting nuclear energy. You simply can't be weak minded enough to believe this crap you keep posting. So your purpose is either to irritate people or confuse them, not to engage in genuine debate or commentary in good faith.

This is but one obvious example of knowing disinformation you are spewing and if you continue to spew it, your comments will be moderated to prevent further attacks on the mental poise of our readers.

This has been your last warning.

@COMMENT #50

Agent 99,
I hope you take some time at least to do some research to verify or disprove what I say in my comments.

Please watch that video by Dr. David MacKay of Cambridge University

How Many Light Bulbs? - From Cambridge Ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs

You can also download the professor's book which he makes available for free download at his site:
http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

This is David MacKay's blog

http://withouthotair.blogspot.com

@COMMENT #50 Agent 99 said

"This is but one obvious example of knowing disinformation you are spewing and if you continue to spew it, your comments will be moderated to prevent further attacks on the mental poise of our readers."

Think about that. What you're saying is you'll protect readers from thinking for themslevles and you'll the thinking for them?

"Hide the decline"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7844

It has been in our RULES FOR COMMENTING AT BRAD BLOG, to which you have been referred a few times, since their inception. It is there because, far from preventing people thinking for themselves, it protects them from having to waste time and brain cells trying to discern and debunk outright pernicious crap. Then there are the countless others who don't do that... just let the lies seep into their brains without noticing that's happened... which I'm sure you know all about, if you're not apocalyptically feeble-minded and truly can't think at all.

Like I said before 99,

Take the time to actually see links.

Like I said before, Konstantin, it is not incumbent on anyone here to spend our time laboring on your crap. I took enough time to see your links.

Thanks for your links, Konstantin --- I'm sure our readers will find them illuminating.

If you're truly concerned about the subsidies required for a roll-out of clean, renewable energy, then you should also apply the same concern to nuclear & fossil fuels. BOTH currently enjoy massive permanent taxpayer subsidies right now that dwarf anything renewables get.

It's also utterly illogical to claim, as you do, that somehow solar and wind, which can be installed anywhere (including the billions of square feet of empty rooftop space in the U.S.) are somehow examples of a centralized ownership model when the very nature of nuclear power makes it the prime example of "CONCENTRATE[d] control and power into a few locations and into the hands of a few companies". Unless you have info on homeowner mini-nuclear power plants in the backyard?

The fossil fuel industry alone gets $79 billion a year in permanent tax incentives/subsidies etc., while renewable have to beg every year for Congress to renew their paltry share of $29 billion.

Nuclear also requires massive federal subsidies and taxpayer guarantees for the loans to construct the massive projects, and rate hikes even before they come online, which is why it has been called by some "the most expensive way to boil water". And nuclear power is only emissions-free after the plants come online --- the construction requires massive production of concrete, a significant source of emissions.

None of that is to say that nuclear power can't be an important part of a renewable energy portfolio, or that there are not also emissions in the construction/manufacture of solar or wind power components. I haven't seen a full lifecycle analysis that compares the three. If you find one, please share it!

It's just to point out some more resources so our readers can get a better understanding of the issues and options.

Finally, it's a good question as to whether or not decentralized distributed generation (basically rooftop, wind, or small solar or wind farms) can supply ALL the nation's or the world's energy needs. It certainly can't right now due to the lack of market support and penetration, but some studies indicate that it could. The truth is, no one has ever tried, and fossil fuels have a 100-year start.

...and, at #44:
>"I not saying Des is responsible for this point of view but this point of view ... is very old, even going back to the time of Plato.
...
It's a psychological manipulation meant to make people blame themselves just like abusers make their victims think they are to blame."

Thanks for not blaming me for that one! Seriously, tho, just because an observed phenomenon like species extinction from resource depletion has been historically abused by some people to mislead others, that doesn't make it untrue.

Konstantin wrote:

"Hide the decline"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7844

And, other than further littering up our comments threads, this is meant to teach us what exactly?? That the known problems that exist with dendrochronological (tree ring) data as a climate temperature model run into problems as of 1960 is somehow new and/or unknown??

That was, of course, known prior to the hacked and stolen emails, and still is.

BTW, as you continue to charge --- now over and over again repeatedly --- that the reporting of Des and I is just not up to snuff for you (presumably because we don't report various pieces of misinformation you've posted here over the last several days, and/or on your pet project of thorium nuclear power), I suppose I should ask: Since you arrived here, banging that nuclear drum, do you work with, in any way, anybody associated with that particular industry, or the big energy lobby?

You see, Desi and I offer full transparency about who we are, so you can criticize us as you see fit. You, on the other hand, are an anonymous individual, who hasn't bothered to identify yourself beyond a single name (which may or may not be a pseudonym), have posted a number of misinformation and/or disinformation items here, over and over again, but have failed to offer the transparency about who YOU are.

Please feel free to do so, since your copious posts here certainly have the ring of someone with a less-than-transparent agenda. If you'd be so kind.

Des,

My concern about the subsidies of solar and wind is that the subsidies cover up the fact that solar and wind are inadequate to supply the power needed and cover the true cost of solar and wind power farms and even personal solar.
Since they can't provide enough power to supply demand as shown in the video by Dr. McKay, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR8wRSp2IXs , they will put the US and other countries towards an unsustainable path whereby in the future people will be forced to live in an energy poverty.

Claims are made now that they can provide. Just like the leveraged fake wealth that people thought they had recently before the recession.
Once reality set in that the wealth was illusory people lost savings, home, ...
Same thing could happen with energy. Once reality sets in people will have no choice but to live in a kind of poverty that may resemble feudal society.

Why not remove ALL energy subsidies? Let the technologies stand on their own.

"Nuclear also requires massive federal subsidies and taxpayer guarantees for the loans to construct the massive projects, and rate hikes even before they come online, which is why it has been called by some "the most expensive way to boil water".

I'm sure if you study it you will see how lobbyists have used "regulations" to create cartels for themselves and prevent competition in their industries. What you wrote is an example of this. I'm sure you can guess which particular type of energy companies are responsible.

About your link to "supply ALL", I think you proved my point of CONCENTRATING power in the hands of a few in a small area of the country.

You say the carbon while building the nuclear plants is a problem?
But can wind and solar really supply all the energy of the US or the world?
People have already looked into this. See these links for details:
The following article address that and much more:

"Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′"
http://bravenewclimate.c.../11/03/wws-2030-critique

Further articles of interest (recommended reading):

I'm sure you know who Stewart Brand is:
A Q&A with Stewart Brand
http://neinuclearnotes.b...-with-stewart-brand.html

Read Dr. Barry Brooks TCASE series of posts ( I think there are 6 so far)
The following is his first:
Thinking critically about sustainable energA Q&A with Stewart Brandy (TCASE) 1: Prologue
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/09/27/tcase1

Amory Lovins and His Nuclear Illusion - Final Thoughts
http://neinuclearnotes.b...is-nuclear-illusion.html

"Key concepts for reliable, small-scale low-carbon energy grids"
http://bravenewclimate.c...l-low-co2-energy-systems

And this is a short video on the benefits of thorium nuclear power:
Thorium Energy Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U

COMMENT #58 Brad Friedman said ...

Since you arrived here, banging that nuclear drum, do you work with, in any way, anybody associated with that particular industry, or the big energy lobby?

I'm not associated with any energy industry or lobby and don't have anything to gain by INFORMING you and everyone except to hopefully prevent you and everyone from being hoodwinked by crooks who you think are building a sustainable future.

Nothing I posted is misinformation or disinformation.

Who I am is someone who actually paid attention in school and university unlike many other people in the US with a lack of understanding of science.

Konstantin whiffed with:

Nothing I posted is misinformation or disinformation.

Do I really need to go back and pull out --- to post as evidence (a word and concept with which I'll have to presume you're actually familiar) your repeated (over and over again) claim that 1998 was not the hottest year on record, but that 1934 was instead?!

Sigh. The beat goes on. Keep up that drumbeat, amigo. Though it does get rather exhausting to listen to, over and over and over again...

@ comment #61,

I've already provided you with links directly from the man who discovered the error in NASA's data, Steve McIntyre.

Here are some of the relevant posts:

Does Hansen's Error "Matter"?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885

"Lights Out Upstairs"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891

Hansen and the "Destruction of Creation"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1946

Just saw this on a NASA website. Some journalist should take a look at it and get to the bottom of it.

Controversial New Climate Change Data
http://earthobservatory....41400&src=eoa-manews

Here's the contact info for the guy who put out that data, Konstantin. It would be such a good use of your abundant time if you asked him what this means in terms of the ocean acidification levels Desi's been trying to get you to heed. I've checked him out. He knows his stuff. He's a data miner of the first water. So you should definitely talk to him about this, and get back to us with his response.

Be the media.

And that Guido guy from that article who had just shown that carbon emissions from deforestation were something more like 12% instead of 20%... bad news for carbon traders... put his name to this a week later. Can't these guys make up their minds? I mean, hell, one week they're giving the capitalist pigs heartburn and the next their raising their pulses in hot anticipation of the mother of all market bubbles. These so-called "scientists" with all those PhDs and data sets falling off their desks and personal pages about dedicating themselves to these arcane disciplines to save the earth keep putting out all these results without seeming to favor the market or the planet.... What the hell are they up to? You should call Guido too.

Climate-Gate: Leaked
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked

Interesting link, Konstantin, wherein a guy simply asserts the emails were "most likely released by an internal source."

The research institution in question have launched a full investigation, so the truth of what really happened will have to wait until then. In the meantime:

Watergate redux: Break-ins reported at another top climate research center

and

Russian Secret Service accused of paying hackers to discredit scientists after stolen correspondence traced to server in Siberia

and

Decade of 2000s Was Warmest in History, New Research Shows

@ Des comment #67,

First, again this is not about disproving climate change or global warming though you keep bringing that up. Maybe you should try to separate politics and science.

Second, if you read his page you will see in his conclusion where he writes "I suggest" and if you read the page ( I know it's technical with computer jargon) you will see why he comes to that conclusion. Maybe you should ask the opinion of someone who has experience as system administrator.

Third, you must not have been following this story carefully to fall for the simple cover story of Russian spies. Again ask a system administrator to see how ridiculous the Russian spy explanation is.

Konstantin @59 and pretty much elsewhere:

My concern about the subsidies of solar and wind is that the subsidies cover up the fact that solar and wind are inadequate to supply the power needed and cover the true cost of solar and wind power farms and even personal solar. Since they can't provide enough power to supply demand

...is just an utter logical fallacy. There are studies that show renewables can replace fossil fuels. Unfortunately I don't have time today to go looking for them again.

But the point is: Just because clean energy renewables haven't yet or may take a long time to do so is not the same as what you're claiming --- that they can't ever.

Have you heard the maxim that 'enough sunlight falls on the surface of the earth in one hour to power the entire world for a year'?

We've already figured out the How of converting free, can't-commoditize-it sunlight & wind into energy. The question has now moved on to being a matter of When and Where, not If. To say that it simply "can't" do the whole job ever is, at its core, saying you don't believe people can figure out how to take what we've already discovered how to do and do more of it.

Also, your assertion that distributed generation of solar panels on millions of rooftops is somehow equal to 'concentrated' control in the hands of a few is just absurd and contradictory on its face. By its very nature, individual ownership of your own power source on your own roof can't be concentrated; like the automobile and the personal computer, it puts the ownership and the means in the hands of the individual.