Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Climate Change Conspiracy Controversy

I’ve been getting a lot of contact from readers asking why TDG isn’t covering the ‘Climategate‘ story, in which email messages from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit were hacked and released via the Internet. Firstly, I have to note that the story was covered in Kat’s news briefs on Monday (a little hard to find perhaps, due to the amount of links). Secondly, the reason I don’t mention the GW controversy much myself, is because I don’t know what to think about it – I haven’t done enough reading and research on the matter to really hold a valued opinion (and sadly, I’d apply that to 99% of the people currently going purple in the face on forums across the internet). So I’d prefer not to comment much when I feel rather uninformed (or at times, misinformed) on the matter.

What does interest me though is how this controversy mirrors so many other scientific debates, with individuals trapped in their own reality tunnel and reacting accordingly. So for some, the email leak is evidence of a worldwide conspiracy. To others it just shows that data and conclusions are being fudged. Alternatively, some seem to view it as a case of ‘nothing to see here’, and then I’ve even see some blogs pronouncing that a full viewing of the emails demonstrates how ‘Global Warming Denialists’ are wrong. And here lies my difficulty in making sense of it all – I have hardly read an essay, or seen a graph, in which I have not seen some manipulation of the reader (that includes both GW and anti-GW arguments) into accepting the author’s particular reality tunnel.

Regardless of the truth of the matter, I do take issue with the way in which those challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory are ostracized as ‘Denialists’. The term itself is insulting (echoing Holocaust Denial), and squeezes everyone from some clueless idiot claiming a lizard conspiray to highly-qualified scientists mainly questioning the ‘anthropogenic’ aspect into one category to be dismissed as ‘denying’ Global Warming (very similar to the debate over the paranormal). While I understand the emotive nature of the debate (ie. “we need to stop arguing and act now to ensure our children’s future!”), I also think it is a very dangerous thing to stifle debate on any issue. Given that much of TDG’s ethos is about challenging orthodox knowledge, I therefore am more than open to hearing (intelligent) arguments against the AGW theory. Note, however – I care very little for people starting from their preconceived view and matching the data to their arguments, despite it’s popularity.

So my interest in ‘Climategate’ is probably a little different to most – what fascinates me is the insight into how the scientific debate is taking place. When you can look at emails in which the peer review process seems more akin to turf wars then you get a better understanding of the skepticism we all should have towards any pronouncements of scientific concensus (n.b. ‘skepticism’, not ‘blanket denial of’).

  1. Climate Change
    Thanks Greg, I agree and will continue to read through arguments put forward by both sides of the ‘debate’. Check out search Ockham’s Razor for the 18th Oct 09 transcript available of Ian Plimer/Pilmer very interesting and to the point. Then there is always Richard Hoagland and David Wilcock’s work on Interplanetary Change put up in 2004 still found on Enterprise Mission. David Wilcock ( still updates this data and uses it in his lectures on Convergence. It uses NASA data to show every planet in our solar system (and their moons) going through climate changes and some to even greater extremes. Happy reading.

  2. 2012 and all that …
    I’ve been listening to a lot of podcasts lately: some very interesting and some quite silly (although it is often difficult to determine the extent of silliness – maybe just silly enough to be true?).

    Anyhow, for some reason, even the old one’s (such as Terence Mckenna and Daniel Pinchbeck in the Psychadelic Salon podcast archive) are drawing me into the 2012 thing … not something I’ve been particularly engaged with up to this point. I think it was Pinchbeck who made the point that the climate crisis is precisely what you would expect at this time: the collective consciousness (including that of the earth itself) bringing matters to a head in order to force a change.

    Looked at from that point of view, perhaps we shouldn’t be overly concerned with the climate or the economy. Perhaps the turmoil we are seeing is necessary to bring about change. I’m not saying that we should all pray for the return of Cheney or Palin, of course. Maybe though we should see the need to concentrate the minds of the population that change is necessary and inevitable if we are to evolve.


    1. thats good Dave….
      and you are right! There is little any of us can do about what ever may be happening. What we can do is, as people in democratic places, stop the elite using this to make money.
      Unfortunatly the media and govenment wheels are already turning so it is too late for that.
      I could explain the 5 pronged attack that is happening but that would take many pages. Briefly though, for those who have a small understanding of the past and future concerning civilisation and it’s progress, this is just another tool in the controllers toolbox. As we become more savvy their tools become more adept at decieving us.
      But never mind, it will all work out in the long run. The cross roads have many directions and depending on the direction of the masses concensus will determine the roughness of the road.

  3. Its hard to say very much
    Its hard to say very much about this. As you say Greg, it can be taken either way, and is being taken either way. I think if anything is to be gleamed from it it is in the ways it is being taken.

    I watched a program the other day on 2012. I really shouldn’t have as these programs tend to annoy me to a degree that they shouldn’t. If i wish to live a nice relaxed life with low blood pressure then these sort of programs are not what the doctor ordered. An anti-placebo perhaps… Anyway.

    In it they had a geologist talking about polar drift. To a trained eye you could see how much he was being distorted, but you guys have been good in teaching me to keep an open mind so i wondered whether my geology powers were in doubt next to the Princeton geologist. So i emailed him.

    He replied that; quote ‘i was so annoyed that i wrote an article about what they should have said’.

    From debates with creationists it quickly becomes clear how important context is. I am not here asking for the emails to be taken in any particular way, just that we respect context because without it anything any of us say can be used by anyone to support anything.

    1. obviously Rick…..
      …..your spam filter is of an inferior quality then our esteemed scienctists. Not that they would need any help, their heads are quiet large as it is……ooooppsss, did I say that out loud……my bad!

  4. Climate Change Conspiracy Controversy
    Thank you Greg for pointing that out. I’ve been in the energy science field for about ten years now. I’ve read quite a lot about global warming and I still don’t know what to believe. It is extremely difficult see the order in the chaos of the global warming facts. If you are ‘a believer’ in Anthropogenic Global Warming you can find your facts that prove you are right. If you are ‘a denialist’ of course you can do the same. It is extremely easy to use your facts to ‘prove’ you’re view is right without showing all the facts.

    In the blogosphere you can find hilarious reactions after a very cold day: ‘where is global warming now? It freezes like hell’ and the same goes for the other side.

    Although a balanced opinion about difficult scientific subjects is not really popular, it would be nice to see that little more across the world wide web.

    1. personally…..
      …I back the Geologist over any other. But their views and evidence is over shadowed by the hype. The past has the answer for the future……it’s all been done before.

    1. Forget GW, we have bigger environmental issues
      [quote=Perceval]Regardless of the facts on climate change, I’m all for replacing fossil fuels with renewables in the shortest time frame possible.[/quote]

      My sentiments exactly! Whether GW is real or a fraud, the fact remains we’re poisoning ourselves and destroying ecosystems at alarming rates. We can’t continue breathing car exhausts, we can’t continue destroying rainforests the size of Belgium a year.

      Polluted earth, air and water does not have to be the cost of progress, it is possible to clean up our acts and enjoy modern conveniences. Alas, most people just don’t care.

      1. Why should I comment, when the others have already made my point
        GW, anthropogenic or not, distracts from the fact that CO2 and others chemicals released in the burning of carbon based fuels are poisons, and that is the issue we should be focused on.

      2. indeed
        Indeed there are many reasons to clean up this place. The danger of blind belief in AGW is that it leads to focusing only on CO2. We are allowed to pollute all we want, as long as we reduce out CO2 output. That is not a healthy situation.

  5. What happened to common sense?
    To my mind, much of the debate over climate change is a diversion from the real issue. Whether you believe it’s natural or caused by humans, why in the world would you *want* to shit in your own living room? Saying it a bit differently, why *wouldn’t* we try to cause the least amount of harm to the Earth, in terms of fuels and disposables? I have to wonder–what, really, is behind the vehemence of the current anti-environmentalism? And what happened to common sense?

    1. The problem is that these
      The problem is that these people who are so busy scaring everybody don’t really care about the environment at all! It’s not about cleaning up Earth—it’s about shaking down citizens for more cash, treating them like serfs, making us feel guilty for exhaling co2, etc. No one will deny that we pollute WAY too much, that there’s ALL SORTS of nasty chemicals in our air/food/water.

      But this is about CONTROL, not cleaning up the planet. It’s obvious that pollution is bad, so that makes a great pre-text for their real aims–“Hey, what’s the harm in trying to be more eco-friendly?!?” Well, no harm at all–IF that’s the true concern! But it’s not. It’s about establishing “global governance” so that grass-roots democracy doesn’t get in the way. All these elitists will have to do is say, “DO THIS. DO THAT. PAY US THIS. YOU’RE KILLING THE PLANET.” Every time you purchase something, they can argue that you’re helping to kill the planet. So there’s the excuse for another tax.

      But the Hadley CRU emails/documents prove that they aren’t searching for the truth of the matter—they’re figuring out ways to force a pre-determined conclusion down the world’s throat, EVEN IF CLIMATE DATA DON’T SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS.

      The UN is discussing this shit at Copenhagen really soon. It’s about making the world more malleable for those power-players—it’s not about cleaning up the world at all!

  6. +1, and thank you for
    +1, and thank you for reminding me once again why I still love this site after all these years. Personally, I think the AGW debate is all about money (big shocker!) A person standing on a street corner with a bullhorn presenting a reasonable message like “Heys guys, let’s be responsible and clean up our act” doesn’t motivate like the Chicken Little type arguments of the AGW crowd. Frankly, I don’t care if AGW is real, I’d just like to see people on both sides quit bickering over the minor point of wether it is man made or not, and simply rememeber that the Earth is (mostly) a closed system and we do have the ability to eventually poison that system to the point of our own extinction, just like those poor, poor yeasties in that beer in your hand fouled their enviornment to the point that they all died so you could enjoy their tasty by-products.

    1. inevitable
      …I’d just like to see people on both sides quit bickering over the minor point of wether it is man made or not,


      I keep saying that. The climate is going to change, man made or not. The climate always changes. Consequently we always have to deal with climate change, and those who are not prepared will face problems.

      But let us also look on the bright side – the climate today sure isn’t optimal. Perhaps it will get better.

  7. Daily Grail should do better on this!
    I too am a bit annoyed by The Daily Grail’s approach to this. Too often it seems Daily Grail takes a mamby-pamby approach, feeding us plenty of mainstream info about “global warming”, while not giving the opposite side equal time. Exact same thing with 9/11. Kinda weak from a site that claims to be so edgy, pushing “red pills” and what not… People come here for interesting perspectives, not re-heated mainstream-media left-overs…

    The CRU leaked emails ARE HUGE!!! Have you seen the quotes in there? Their computer programs, their peer-review system, their general attitude toward fellow scientists, their frustration over lack of data backing up their claims, their discussion of “tricks” to get the programs spitting out the “correct result” (even if they have to feed it “garbage” to get that result!), etc. etc.!

    People, we DO pollute WAY too much, but these global governance boards they’re going to discuss in Copenhagen ARE *NOT* about trying to help Mother Earth! It’s the elitists setting up ANOTHER excuse to tax us and create a supra-national government that WE THE PEOPLE will have NO say in. They’ll be able to control poorer countries, manipulate larger ones, etc. This is really not about science or ecology at all, it’s human GREED and LUST FOR POWER.

    Go to: for better coverage of this HUGE story. Just because Katie Couric isn’t talking about it doesn’t mean it’s not real. They just don’t want to admit what huge liars and propagandists they are, and this PROVES it. PUH-*ROOOOVES* it.

    1. Greg,
      Funny that suddenly you


      Funny that suddenly you admit you haven’t had researched the subject thoroughly enough to form an informed opinion. Didn’t seem to inhibit TDG from throwing their support towards the Gore/IPCC crowd for the past year or so.

      Said you wanted some background material to get up to speed?

      Here are a couple of podcast by Kim Greenhouse featuring Robert Felix (author: ‘Not by Fire but by Ice’ and website: Ice Age Now) climatologist Dr Timothy Ball and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo. Part II continues with Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. David Legates.

      These are very recent, Nov 14 and 15, 2009.

      Chiuk Czlek

  8. This site has a fairly intelligent/inquisitive readership
    How much of the energy expended over a given period of time for the sake of product marketing? How many neons or equivalent are on all night at the local coffee shop, corner pub, bar, etc? How much energy is expended to advertise businesses that are in fact closed? How much energy is used in the creation of billboards and lighting them up at night?

    I wonder how, in the US, television and radio would have fared if not for the marketers. How many people would even own a tv, if advertisers didn’t pay for the (what’s left of it) creative content?

    Bottom line, how much energy would we potentially save if we regulated advertising energy consumption?

  9. Devil’s Advocate
    I’m a bit amused by the talk of money and “control” vis-a-vis the climate change issue in some of these posts–as if that were the sole concern of the pro-environmental movement and none at all for the fossil fuel industry…!

    1. priorities
      My guess is that different factions here have different emphasis on things like control, profits, health of the population etc.

      The oil people want to make good money for as long as they can. It has worked for, what, 150 years or so. They figure a few more decades are possible.

      The social democrat leaning types are in it mostly for control, that seems to be their religion. If there is any problem, they try to fight that problem by using more control over the population. Strangely enough they got this recipe from the ancien regime types. Most of the environmentalists are in this control oriented camp.

      Then there are the odd realistic people, who look for actual solutions.

      1. very close earthling but…
        ….if I were to catalogue your understanding of this, I would put it close to the bottom.
        The post you replyed to is,at best, very uninformed. Controll, yes, power, yes, manipulation,definatly. After 2 thousand plus years, people have still not woke up to the deceptption. What eludes me is how, after so much history and with the internet giving instant access to so much information, people are still blind.
        We have had, free energy, cancer cures, cold cures, electric auto’s, clean water supplies and so much I can’t list here. And yet, look at what is happening. The controllers will not release a god damn thing that won’t cost the average slave/drone/person money.
        Follow the money trail and you will be astounded at the curuption envolved in every day life.

        1. all nails
          You know the saying, if the only tool you have is a hammer, it’s tempting to treat everything liek a nail?

          That’s what we have here, at several levels. Business as usual.

          The fossil fuel people and their capitalist pig friends. The socialists and their control methods. The believers in the big
          bad control groups. It used to be the unseen gods that were responsible for our problems. Now it’s the unseen controllers.

          No folks, the problem is us. We stick to our old methods for too long.

          1. Exactly, like nails
            Very well said Earthling.

            People do not change, really. They change direction but always from the same mentation model. Data changes, but the computer never gets upgraded.

          2. It’s Too Simple, Let’s make it complicated
            Your right people do not change we have the software updates available but there’s a preference to follow the line of least resistance. Watch the world news no change. Read the debates here no change. It the same opposing forces. Hegelian dialectic is alive and well. But if you step on it and it looks like it, smells like it and taste like it. Most likely that’s just it. We follow the same formula’s over and over again and if someone were to offer you a simple solution you’d say “ No it can’t be it,that’s too simple. There have been many in history that have suggested it. Jesus said “ We’re asleep” , remember Plato’s cave. What about more recent well known Nursery Rhyme “ Row, row, row your boat …life is but a dream. And now just because it was just Richard who suggested it. Hmm…. We sure can’t take a hint can we.

          3. the reason why……
            …….is because of the exact same mindset as yours.
            Change will only come when people wake up. You flow with the system that you believe is good. You need to understand that this system is guideing you in it’s direction for it’s own purpose. Your just a puppet that thinks it has it’s own freedom.
            The manipulaters and controllers have a grip on you that you will never shake free from. Never mind the One World Order or the UN or any Govenments, the power is beyound all of them. Ignore religion, spiritulism and any form of belief and faith based deception.
            There is a whole world out there that is above and beyound that. But to free yourself is a very difficult thing to do.
            But worth it!

  10. I have to admit
    Because I wanted solar, wind, and cleaner energy, I went along with the warming crowd. Well into the Fall of 08. Then the solar minimum really was kicking in, and temps were falling. I still don’t know if we’re melting or freezing, or both,the planets a complicated place. I do understand a bit more about weather and the climate then I did 5+ years ago. But if they still can’t get the weather right for today, how can science tell us they have the answers for even 10 years away, tell us we need to change. And give us TaDa! Carbon Credits! What!? I want clean energy, solar, wind. Not this Ponzi-tax on the lower classes. Maybe those islands are sinking, not being sunk? Maybe the ice is retreating, but Greenland is called that for a reason, in was, not so long ago…And plants use carbon dioxide to grow, volcano give off water and carbon dioxide. Mt. St. Helens gives off more carbon dioxide then all the industries together in Washington St. Should volcano’s be taxed extra?

    Climategate points.
    1)The subverting of peer review.
    2)Obstruction of The Freedom of Information act.
    3)Breach of university ethics codes.
    4)Stacking the deck of UN IPCC.
    5)Collecting Money and Power, pressuring, and punishing
    those who don’t agree.

    Meet the new boss(Science). Same as the old boss(Religion)
    All we need is funny hats for the Scientist to all agree to wear, to show what fraction they adhere to!

    1. Carbon Credits
      I’ve read some blogs and articles re. this so-called Climategate. IMO it doesn’t prove there’s a sinister conspiracy to make gullible people believe in global warming. It only goes to show that scientists, like every human being in the planet, get frustrated when they and their work are attacked. The obtuse response of the spokemen of the Univ. where the e-mail were hacked from goes to show how scientists have a long way to go in learning PR skills.

      That said, I agree that I don’t like the idea of offering carbon credits as a solution to cut off Carbon emissions. Corruption and lack of transparency could make that approach a terrible delay obstructing more direct avenues to create a true Zero-carbon economy.

      I also think people are getting tired of the emphasis in Carbon in the atmosphere. There’s certainly many other things we have to correct in order to clean up this planet aside from CO2 emissions.

      1. trade
        But but but, there’s such lovely money to be made trading carbon credits. Just invest a little, you don’t have to produce or consume anything. You can trade carbon credit futures, and when someone else breaks a promise, you make money.

        1. Money
          If the whole point is to make money, then I guarantee there’s more moolah in letting the planet go to hell. That way you can go all Lex Luthor and start buying cheap property that will become expensive beachfronts once Miami and New Orleans become post-modern Atlantis.

          Carbon credits feel like modern versions of the indulgences the Catholic church used to sell to wash off your sins —yes, I’m a climate change adherent, and I have used a religious metaphor to refer to climate change. Shocked enough yet? 😉

          PS: Bottom line, there are morons on both sides of the trenches eager to make a profit out of it. That does not change the current state of the planet.

          1. Beaten to the punch by Web 3.0
            [quote=red pill junkie]Carbon credits feel like modern versions of the indulgences the Catholic church used to sell to wash off your sins —yes, I’m a climate change adherent, and I have used a religious metaphor to refer to climate change. Shocked enough yet? ;-)[/quote]

            Dude, that analogy is soooo November 21. If only you Twittered… ;P

          2. much better
            Oh the carbon indulgences are much better than the old sinner version. We can trade the carbon ones freely, they are not attached to anyone’s soul!

            So to drive up the prices, we should strongly support a strong Copenhagen agreement. That lets us make some starting capital for the beach front deal, which will become attractive when the climate control methods fail.

      2. but it DOES show conspiracy
        But what about when the scientists talk about “hiding the decline” of global temps?! That sure sounds like conspiracy to me!!! Phil Jones bitching that the data DO NOT SHOW THE EARTH TO BE WARMING.

        They conspired to keep the lie going, and keep the big-bucks fund-money rolling in!

        Don’t mis-understand me—pollution is a big problem, and we should all reduce/re-use/re-cycle, without a doubt. But let’s not let these power-players create “global governance boards” with tax & regulation powers that citizens will have no say over!—especially when the data & scientists have been so thoroughly damaged!

        The SOURCE CODE to their climate-simulation program has been leaked, and it’s a mess. They talk about how it will spit out “correct” results, but only if “garbage” is fed in—in other words, it’s the opposite of the scientific method!!!

        It’s conspiracy, and those emails clearly show this.

        1. source code
          Do you know where I can look at the source code? I have been looking for some time, and the lack of availability has been one of the reasons I am sceptical about what these people say.

          1. will take a look
            I’ll take a look at it. I thought I also read about an “official” release of the source code in the last few days.

            In all the noise about this hacker/leak event, I haven’t head a denial about the accuracy of leaked stuff.

          2. interesting PDF
            one interesting PDF in there is the file


            a classic marketing approach.

  11. Conspiracy conspiracy
    The trouble with uncovering secret conspiracies is that there is often a conspiratorial vested interest in ‘debunking’. Given that little has been achieved by the powers that be in tackling climate change, growing belief that the whole ‘climate change’ idea is little more than manipulation for profit lets the powerful off the hook. How often do vested interests dominate without the public being aware of this? I’m reminded of an ‘independent’ report a few years ago, which may have been mentioned here, regarding disposable nappies where most of the committee members had ‘interests’ in the major manufacurers. If one wants conspiracy theory, look at the mobile phone industry – try to find any serious questions in the mainstream media regarding colton and DR Congo: any negative comments regarding mobile (cell) phones concentrates solely on microwaves…
    As for climate change, I’m one of those who thinks the way we treat both the planet and each other is horrifying – I have been a committed environmentalist for many years and the ‘truth’ about climate change has little impact upon this. Reality, as history seems to dictate, reflects an uncaring and unchanging attitude. How many children died on 11th September 2001? Literally tens of thousands on that one day. Has anything been done to stop this daily slaughter? No. Drastically reducing carbon emissions, if it is needed, is easily achieved BUT business interests would suffer. Even when individuals try to ‘do their bit’ they are often ignorant of nefarious business interests: the leading brand of recycled toilet roll is owned by a company who use more virgin forest for their other brands than any other. It would all depress me if I weren’t too angry all the time to be depressed.

    Sorry, rant over. Time to watch American Gladiators.

    1. The real world
      Thanks, Jack, for your words of common sense. Your cell phone comments were right on. How many people know about DR Congo uranium deposits and their exploitation?

      You’re right about the busisnes interests. Look at the lobbying budgets against AGW; compare them with the actual research funds.

      I’m glad cap and trade is dead, as shuffling paper has never solved anything. And we have got to stop using our planet as a dump.

      I’d be depressed, but I just feel nauseated.

  12. Us and Them
    I appreciate Greg’s honesty and share some of his sentiment.

    Over the years I’ve often gotten wrapped up in Comment is Free discussion threads over at the Guardian’s site. (Even when I was supposed to working.)

    Although this has been good writing practice and allowed me to develop arguments and positions on a number of subjects, the hottest issues tend to be polarized — they are us and them creations.

    You have religion vs. science, “paranormal” research vs. materialism, 9/11 truthers vs. unimaginative dolts, warmers vs. deniers, ugly Israel/Palestinian threads, and so on.

    Often, those who comment forget the larger phrase “Comment is Free” is from, namely “Comment is free but facts are sacred” and confuse opinion (comment) with news (reporting), something that tends to often be true in interactive environments all over the Internet.

    The polarization of these issues typically involves a polarization of opinion or belief and facts are cherry picked to align with belief.

    Over time, I’ve gradually learned to appreciate how difficult it can be to withhold judgement and not take sides (except, of course, on those issues for which I do hold strong beliefs).

    Meanwhile, I find visiting the Daily Grail a welcome relief after spending too much time focusing on some CiF thread. Here, the tone is often light, links presented such that a visitor can make up their own mind, while the subjects of the articles the links lead to are very often quite interesting.

    I attempt to distance myself from both of the primary climate change belief camps. It’s clear to me that modeling climate is no mean feat; it’s also clear to me that scientists are as imperfect as anyone else but that in itself doesn’t mean that all of their science is without merit (it’s true that many of my diatribes in the religion vs. science threads attack both science and religion but on the science side that has more to do with the limitations of science than imperfections in measuring and attempting to model climate).

    My business includes researching and writing in the machine-to-machine (M2M) space, which typically involves remote monitoring.

    Climate change is a business opportunity for the M2M industry and I expect governments to eventually realize that low data rate M2M satellite networks and terrestial or cellular M2M networks can be used to accurately measure all kinds of relevant environmental parameters at a cost much lower than the typical multi-billion dollar NASA satellite.

    (There’s no reason, for example, that low cost mass produced buoys that sense currents, temperatures, PH, salinity, etc., etc., and communicate with an M2M satellite network, couldn’t be deployed.)

    You don’t have to believe one way or the other to appreciate genuine data, and here’s a relatively inexpensive way to acquire global high quality data.

    There does seem to be a whole heckuva lotta melting going on, although I’ve only seen photos or videos and read reports, which is not the same as actually travelling to polar regions, the Himalayas, or visiting glaciers or mountaintops elsewhere — this is the best I can do at the moment. Some deny any of this is happening, or suggest that the melting is normal or that refreezing more than makes up for it. Based on the photos I’ve seen and the reports I’ve noticed — going back to before this became such a hot issue, before Al Gore — this is genuine, and happening at a rate and on a scale not seen in recent human memory.

    So what’s behind this? It’s plausible that the activities of 8,000,000,000 folks have something to do with this but maybe that’s not the whole story; maybe it’s not even much of the story.

    Will I live to see sea levels rise and temperatures becoming consistently warmer (assuming we’re not in a temporary cooling cycle)?

    Maybe; maybe not.

    If this is happening, and if it is primarily caused by human activity, will all of the people and governments of the planet agree on actions to take and then execute them? I rather doubt it.

    There’s quite a few ifs and what-ifs here, while there’s also the data mentioned above trumpeted by David Wilcock, without even touching on the area I’m much more intrigued with — changes in consciousness.

    Bill I.

    1. on the most part…I agree with you
      But have a little trouble with this:9/11 truthers vs. unimaginative dolts,: anyway, we would be foolish to think that our industry has no effect on the planet. It does, but to what extent? A volcano erruption would do more in 12 hours then we could do in 50 years as far as atmospheric contamination. The planet can and will heal but we need to help it in a positive way not in a forced trans-govenmental, economical based way that sees only the rich get richer.
      A little truth could go a long way round about now.But we need consensus for that to happen.
      Like I said befor, i’m more worried about covert opp’s spraying crap in our air all over the world with very little attention. Something going on there………..

      1. Exaggerating for Effect
        The often raucous 9/11 threads reflect the same polarization found in the other issues, including climate change.

        In this case the tendency is for one camp — the truthers — to be thoroughly convinced that they know what happened, and that this definitely involved unknown members of at least one government, the U.S. government.

        Those in the other camp tend to refuse to exercise their imagination in the slightest — they find any alternative explanation or scenario not worthy of consideration and will trot out Occam’s Razor as an excuse for being so unimaginative. (It’s true some will do some slight imagining and picture bureaucratic rivalry, bungling, and/or confusion as sufficing to explain all oddities, all peculiar concidences, and the failure of multi-billion dollar defense systems to work properly, but that is as far as they will go.)

        When presented with a crime, don’t detectives imagine possible scenarios that explain clues? Investigative reporting has something in common with the activities of police detectives. Note, too, the “nose” of a good reporter, a reference to a willingness to follow intuition or hunches, to “scent” a story. Some effective detectives undoubtedly employ comparable abilities, honed by training and experience.

        You see this lack of imagination in an unwillingness of almost all major news organizations to look into obvious pecularities.

        As just one example of many, no credible news organization, so far as I’m aware, has ever looked carefully at and reported on Gerald Shea’s Memo to the 9/11 Commission, while most posters of the anti-truther persuasion never, apparently, follow links to the document and scrutinize it, when these are provided. They are just as convinced that they know what happened as the truthers and so, in their minds, need not look at such things, even while loudly shouting about a complete absence of evidence to support the truther perspective.

        Again, you see this in discussion of all polarized issues, with only a tiny minority of folks willing to stand aside from the primary and opposed camps of belief, combining detachment and impartiality with at least a degree of flexibility of thinking — and some imagination.

        The cry for evidence is the same in science vs. religion or paranormal vs. materialism threads (although the nature of evidence itself is a topic worthy of serious consideration; journalistic evidence, scientific evidence, and experiential evidence are each of a differing nature). Note again, however, how even when evidence of an “objective” nature is introduced — in the paranormal area this would include, say, the results of the PEAR experiments — those who have already made up their minds against even the possibility of “paranormal” realities will ignore or reject it.

        Naturally the focus is on scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, and this is appropriate.

        Deduction and inference have always played necessary and important roles when people imagine the nature of reality — witness how modern science, originally called “the experimental philosophy”, employed them to overthrow the dogma of Church and Aristotle — but inference is a bit more mysterious than cold, dry deductive logic alone; it is a kind of exercise of imaginative and/or intuitive powers; it may even be said to involve, gasp, inspiration!

        Sorry to ramble on like this — I’m not yet fully awake and am only on my second cup of coffee.

        To summarize, I’d suggest a combination of intellect and intuition, a blending of detached, impartial mentation with open mindedness and some freewheeling imagination is the best way to approach major issues, particularly those that are “highly charged” owing to the polarization of strong belief.

        Very often we believe we know — we’ve made up our minds on some issue — and as a result, pay no heed to anything that points in a possible different direction.

        As I posted previously, interacting in polarized Internet discussions has taught me how very difficult it can be to withold judgement, to wait for additional information while attempting to calmly review what is presently available and confess ignorance while doing so.

        Bill I.

      2. on the most part…I disagree with you
        Hay Floppy1,

        The volcano argument you make is erroneous.

        It might be easy to think that an especially large eruption could when you see one erupting on telly, but consider the volume of the atmosphere in relation to the size of the volcano and then consider the number of factories, power plants etc that we have built.

        Large volcanic eruptions can have an effect. Mt Pinatubo famously cooled the planet for a time. We are dealing with different things though. The cooling was due to large amounts of SO2 (in the order of 17-20 million tonnes).

        Obviously it gets trickier because gasses can be focused in layers. This is what happened to the SO2, which in the order of 17-20 million tonnes represents a huge amount, but minor in terms of overall atmospheric composition.

        The current CO2 value is around 390 parts per million (ppm) volume.

        There are multiple graphs available all over the net showing the CO2 concentration data for the last few hundred thousand years, and the last 600 million.

        In case we would like to dismiss the University of East Anglia’s results as spurious there are multiple correlating sources using multiple techniques. We can completely dismiss the UEA’s results without it affecting the outcome. It is the case that the UAE’s results look very similar to other data taken by other agencies and universities around the world, so we either form the idea of a massive global conspiracy, or we accept that it is not going to have a major affect on the science, though it might on the politics – especially if Saudi Arabia get there way and affect the G77.

        Back to volcanoes. From the figures i can get hold of 1ppm is equal to around 8 billion tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. Mt Pinatubo erupted a total amount of around 10 billion tonnes, but most of this was rock and minerals (obviously). CO2 as a volatile represented only a small amount of the total output.

        The graph

        shows the atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the past 400,000 years. You can clearly see the Milankovitch cycles, and you can clearly see how the CO2 has gone mental in the last 100 years.

        The following graph shows the CO2 level since the 1960’s.

        If volcanoes put out huge amounts then we would see spikes in it. We don’t. By the way the cycles that are shown in grey (the red line is the smoothed data set) show the affect of summer and winters in the northern hemisphere, which has the largest land mass. Plant growth in the northern hemisphere swings the atmospheric CO2 volume by around 6-9 ppm.

        Over the past 100 years the CO2 concentration has increased from around 290ppm to around 390ppm. So about 100ppm.

        Pinatubo erupted 10 billion tonnes of rock and gas. Estimates are that around 1% of the total ejected volume was gas mass and that of that 1% the USGS estimates that around 15% was CO2. That would mean about 15 million tonnes of CO2 erupted from Mt Pinatubo. Bare in mind these are not wild guesses, geologists know what the mineral compositions of rocks such as those erupted are. Local geologists can correct for the local mineralogy.

        The estimate of 15 million tonnes of CO2 output means that there would need to be (8 billion/15 million) 533 Mt Pinatubo eruptions per year for the last 100 years to account for the CO2 increase shown in those graphs.

        To make matters even worse that is assuming all the CO2 stays in the atmosphere, but of course some is sequestered, so the value would have to be higher.

        I know your argument is not that volcanoes are adding all the CO2, but hopefully the graphs show you that the famous volcanic eruptions did not cause large jumps in the CO2 and the maths shows you that there are simply not enough of these major volcanic eruptions to cause the increase. We would surely be noticing if more than 1 Mt Pinatubo was going off per day.

        Accepting that it is increasing steadily and that volcanoes are not the cause we then go on to what might be.

        Well, we know we are burning alot of coal and oil. We know heavy industry is producing alot of CO2. Better still we can assess the amount of CO2 producing material since the markets trade in it and you can be sure they know how much is moving around since that is how they set the price. Strangely enough it seems that our economic activity is enough to account for the CO2 increases. We don’t even need to go into any hard science to show it. Estimates of the inputs and outputs of economic activity are enough to at least show that we are outputting enough to have an effect.

        Just out of interest the amount we are dishing out is still relatively small next to the planets total carbon cycle, it is just unfortunate that it is enough to just nudge it in the way of increasing total ppm/volume.

        Accepting that the CO2 increase is down to us is just one thing though. I find that bit easier than the science behind the planetary warming affect and what that will do in terms of our future lives and those of our children.

        It gets so complicated with all the different feedbacks that i can see points in criticisms of predictions and of course while the evidence leading to the conclusion that we are responsible for the CO2 is one thing, the modelling predictions are another and the political wrangling, as ever, is fair game for everyone.

  13. here’s a link to the Hadley CRU files
    Here’s the Hadley CRU leaked/hacked emails & documents:

    Get uTorrent if you don’t have it ( ), it’s a simple little program you can use to download all of it, which I believe is all of the emails & documents, including source code to their climate-simulation programs. Also, check YouTube, i’ve seen video of programmers analyzing lines in the sloppy, patch-work code—(the “fudge factor” lines, which shows the code to be unscientific garbage).

    Gore et al have been caught mixing up the order of things—a rise in global temperature causes more carbon dioxide to be released, it’s not carbon dioxide that makes the climate hotter.

    Climate change is natural, it’s ALWAYS changing, by definition. This current “green” wave is just fear-mongering alarmism in a friendly, liberal mask (as exemplified by Obama—this might as well be Bush’s 3rd term, or we might as well have elected McCain; we’d be getting the same results).

    It ties in with 9/11 because it’s a similar overall tactic—get the public all scared and frightened over some dishonest, manufactured problem, and then tell us everything will be better if we let Big Brother have yet more control of our lives! Every day this totalitarianism sneaks a little deeper into the fabric of our society, until we’re being monitored & guided at all times. One of their goals is to be able to send officers to your home to inspect it for various eco-compliances, or remotely control your thermostat, etc. It’s about taxation and control, and I don’t think they plan to help Mother Earth one bit.

    The cynical, elitist power-players who actually decide things in our civilization are exploiting the good intentions of the public, who rightly care about our eco-system and planet. But they are hijacking our legitimate worries and using them to sneak through another agenda entirely, which won’t help the planet but will most certainly help THEM—you know, kinda how the recent Wall Street bail-out worked!?! That’s the upper echelon of society meant to benefit from these sort of scams, and at the public’s expense–that’s exactly how they want climate legislation to work as well.

    The un-informed think they’re clever, and excusably, when they protest, “Oh, those oil companies WANT you to think there’s no problem with emissions! THEY’RE the ones who stand to gain from skepticism over Global Warming!” But what these people don’t realize is that it’s the exact OPPOSITE of the truth! It’s those huge corporations that DO INDEED *WANT* the cap and trade system, and stand to reap MEGA-BUCKS from it….

    This is about geo-political control of countries and taxation, deciding which countries can industrialize and which can’t. It makes the globe more malleable for the elitists who want to totally dictate the shape & activity of human society. It’s about taxation and erosion of both individual and sovereign freedoms, because it’s not We the People who are going to elect the IPCC’s “global governance boards.” All of a sudden there will be a supra-national government, which you will have no say in! They will simply dictate, top-down, to all countries the way things will be, and since we don’t elect them, they don’t have to represent our wishes. This is my understanding of the situation, and it doesn’t sound good for most humans OR planet Earth.

    The bottom line is, the Earth is NOT warming, and top climate scientists realize this. The human population of planet Earth faces many dangers, mainly nuclear- or biological-warfare. But the planet heating up and killing us is no longer plausible enough a scenario for the world to spend so much time, energy, and (tax)money dwelling on.

    Let’s spend more time trying to steer clear of World War 3 regarding military actions against Iran, shall we? Or holding our president accountable for the PROMISES he made to bring “change” and end these damn wars?!

    1. read these
      Check out these links for more info:

      Details about cap-and-trade:

      ClimateGate petition, listing negative impacts of cap-and-trade and science of AGW in general:

      Jon Stewart on ClimateGate:

      An article by Christopher Booker on the scandal:

      1. true……
        the scary thing is, every single aspect of your post is true! But with the Barium and Aluminium and other heavy metals being sprayed out at approx 4500 cm2 an hour all over the world, it will be soon impossible for any human to aknowledge or even care about it. When the time comes for the end of this crazy plan, all humans will be drones.

  14. What I’ve always wanted.
    Is a real push to what we hope are cleaner energies. New energy tech. I’ve supported Climate Change till the e-mails where leaked, and my worst suspicions where realized. Money, taxing people, and squeezing more money out of the population, seems to have been the plan. Not new energy sources. I still want clean, better energy tech. The Oil Spill in The Gulf of Toxico is a crime against all life. This is our wake up call. We all need to do something to help. This is bigger then an earthquake, Hurricane or Killer Bug. I’m giving to those that are helping with the rescue of sea turtles. Some who know me here know of my love of turtles, land, desert, and water. Their a sacred animal. And beautiful souls. My heart is hurting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal