Climategate deepens

Heavens, No!

They weren't doctored.  They were simply adjusted.  Scientifically, through computer algorithms.

The Medieval Warm Period didn't really occur.  Just ask that tree in Siberia.  Or HAL.

It's crazy, to think that these things are usually only seen in movies and that seeing it happen for real is almost scary. Why anyone would go to these lengths to hide such a thing is beyond me. These days it seems pretty hard to keep anything a secret. Specially when people are dumb enough to use regular emails, even if protected by the school but not protected enough to keep hackers out.

I'm not convinced the emails were 'hacked' - looks to me like an inside job, from someone with intimate knowledge of what was going on who decided to blow the whistle but didn't wish to be identified.  A convoluted bit of espionage can't be excluded, of course.

...and yet the farce continues to play out in Copenhagen, "The last best chance" to scam save the planet.

"The last best chance" to save scam the planet.

More accurate, I think.

What I don't get is that if what the first linked article says is true, then why haven't we heard more about it? To elabourate, there are far more losers from reducing carbon emissions than there are winners, and so there will be lots of companies with loads of money for whom it would be in their best interest to increase awareness about such points, if true. They would also be able to put pressure on policy makers and have influence in various other circles. Not just the obvious candidates, such as oil companies, mind, but other companies as well who would be hurt by having to reduce their emissions. What about airlines, or haulage companies, for example?

Also what about the media? Sure you might be able to explain individual media organisations not reporting on an issue because of bias, but there would then be a huge opportunity for another media organisation with sufficient credibility to report such points and achieve a big 'scoop' and increased prominence, if such points were true.

Scam?  Well, it's basically a global plan to redistribute wealth.  Some of the under developed countries are saying that the amounts of money they would receive under the proposed treaty isn't going to be enough that they need more.  Also what is proposed is an International governing body that would have the capability to tax nations.  Obama from what I understand is expected to head over there next week and my guess is to sure up all the votes from the Asian countries he recently visted and bowed to.  It seems more and more that his Noble peace prize was more to purchase a lobbyist for the global climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

To wage a battle against this administration one would need just a little media support. That isn't going to happen when the majority of the media is working for/with the administration. It also doesn't help when some of the large chunks of the media (like NBC) are owned by companies (like GE) that stand to make a fortune from "green" technology through expensive machinery and lucrative government contracts. Many news outlets are teetering on financial collapse. They simply cannot afford the fight.

Second, have you seen what this administration does to sectors of the economy that disagree with its policies? The pharma industry jumped on the Obama bandwagon for the health care fiasco and are off the hook (for the moment). Remember how they were the big bad enemy of heath costs just a few years ago? Not a whisper today. Many of the insurance companies didn't take the bait. Today they are being relentlessly pummeled and vilified as the obstacle to affordable health care. One notable exception is the AARP, which stands to make plenty selling their "supplement" policies for what the UHC won't cover (and if Medicare survives, it will be scaled back further...more cash for AARP).

The same game plan for "Climate Change". GWB might have said, "If your not with us your against us", but Obama means it and practices it. What I find as brilliant about the whole thing is in 20 years when the whole AGW thing turns out to be a scam, parties pushing this pseudo-religion can claim whatever they do now as averting the disaster. Kind of like the stimulus bill "saving jobs". Whatever they make up will be fine.

Personally I believe the earths temperature changes, and has since it was formed. I'm not sure man is causing the change some claim today. That said, I pray it is true. I'm not bothered one bit if cities like San Francisco get covered with water. Sorry if that means some liberal with a beach view, that they think they are entitled to alone, has to relocate. Same with New York, Boston, Seattle, etc. I have a small piece of information: The continents have always constantly changed appearance. If these cities are under water, think how much CO2 won't be produced. Plus the growing season would be a little better in Canada and Russia. Feed the world, plants use CO2 and all that other stuff. Sounds like a win win.

...and they do so well with the money they get now. Does Mugabe need a Prius to park next to his limo?

After he is picked up from the airport after landing in his private jet.

So now we know the price tag of a US President...1.2 million. Attention E-bay shoppers.

Given this is a global issue that has been going on for many years it's not specific to any one administration or even country. For example say the current US administration is powerful enough to make it next to impossible to mount a credible fight against it on the issue of climate change, what about the administrations in all the other countries, in particular the developing ones who would have a stronger incentive to want to be able to pollute (afterall the developed countries got to when they were developing, so why shouldn't they?).

The cities will just be rebuilt elsewhere (and/or the residents move to alternative cities), so the effect on CO2 in the long term is unlikely to be that great. The cost though is in the destruction of those cities, with all the infrastructure, buildings, loss of peoples possessions, etc., which will take time and money to rebuild just to get back to the situation that was achieved prior to being underwater.

Greenlight special.

This thinking didn't materialize over night, and certainly didn't start in the US. In fact the US is one of the last to jump on the band wagon. Why is this so popular? Because we are on the cusp of a brand new industry created, literally, out of thin air. Not some small time, two bit ponzi scheme, this will be the granddaddy of them all. Worldwide, companies are licking their lips at the prospect of new contracts and sales of green tech, politicians are licking their lips at the prospect of new kick backs, taxes (= pay raise), more control (believe it or not some people want power over others), environmentalists and scientists are licking their lips at new grants, more restrictions, advisory and inspector positions. Too bad the tax payer, and to a lesser degree the consumer, is on the dinner plate.

Ask this... Why does money have to be injected into this. If you want to impose CO2 restrictions, just impose them, why the carbon credit scheme? AD hit it on the head, wealth redistribution and like lemmings the public is going over the cliff for it. Few will be rewarded, many will pay. I'm all for keeping the planet clean, that makes good sense. But not at the expense of some. Those poor people in Africa won't see a penny. If Europeans want to throw their resources down a hole, they can do it without our help. Take the money factor away, and see how many private planes would be in Copenhagen.

You'd have to be one of the die-hard, it's raining polar bear, supporters to believe these cities would flood overnight. I forget what the sea level increase is projected at...4 inches by 2050...it changes all the time. Think of all the eco-friendly materials and techniques that can be used in new construction (Cha Ching $$$$).

spot on.

The size of the green tech industry is far smaller than the 'non-green' industry though. There are far more losers than winners if human activity doesn't have a significant impact on global warming. This should also mean that politicians can have far greater kickback opportunities from opposing climate change than supporting it, since the 'non-green' industry will have bigger pockets.

Your average company for example will face increased costs from a green policy focus. Sure they can try and market it as being all responsible and green and try to get increased sales as a result, but when everyone is doing that it's not going to really make much if any difference to sales and will still be costing more.

I didn't say they would. If it happened over say an entire year gradually, or 10 years, you'd still have a big reconstruction bill, because you just can't relocate a city's infrastructure and buildings etc.

These things will happen anyway.  Only a matter of when.  And we're fools if we think we can pick a date for it, like scheduling a doctor's appointment or something.

I'm all for "green", maybe not the same reasons some here are. Believe me most companies have seen the writing on the wall years ago and are doing things to reduce emissions and/or conserve energy or resources. I just got a news letter from Ford the other day, touting how it has reduce it's use of water by 50% over the last few years. Even the largest industries (what is left of them) can ill-afford fines, fees, and taxes on the scale that is being floated.

The main problem I see from this administration, and like minded people, is that the answer is always to punish. By punish I mean tax, levy fees, etc. It's all about the dollars to them and what they can squeeze out. These dollars ultimately come from the tax payers and the consumers. If you applied the same logic to parenting, it would be call child abuse. If they really cared is would be driven 100% by incentives. I do realize that doesn't line anyones pockets, so therefore is not popular in Washington. It's far more easier, and profitable, to vilify a company or even an industry. We see how easy people have been blinded by crusades in the past, apparently nothing has changed.

But it does line the member's of Congress pockets.  More taxes into the Federal pocket that can be spent in Pork spending.  Pork spending gets Congress reelected and hand picked company's contrabutions.

It is just another way for corrupt politicians to make money with your carbon tax dollars. 

Just look at how many of the carbon credits have already been reserved by selected big companies even before the bill has been past.  I am sure that those companies which are already on the carbon credit list have donated heavily to the key politicians writing the bill.  Can we say GE anyone?

I'm with you NC, the problem I have is that this is being smoke and mirror agenda they have hijacked.  I heard it on NPR the other day say that this new Global Climate treaty is going to "bridge the gap between poor and industralized countries" then later following up with how Bolivia is saying that something like 250billion USD wasn't going to be enough that they needed more.  The underlying principle here is to tax the crapola out of the successfully industralized countries and redistribute the wealth in the name of Global Climate Change.  I don't understand why they mask it as a Global Climate Treaty why not be HONEST and call it the global redistribution treaty.  Compliments of Barack Obama, a war time President and Noble Peace Price Recipient.

Here's the kicker...Out of all the countries in the world, the US is one of the youngest. The rest of the world had its chance to develop, the same as the US has and they blew it. I feel no moral obligation to bring the rest of the world up to US standards, because of these nations unwillingness to properly manage their own resources, people, and governments. The US style of government is no secret, anyone could adopt it. Instead, it's just like anywhere, someone one has more they need to give it to me, I don't care how they got it, I want it too. These jokers in the government aren't going to be happy until we are a third world country ourselves. Seems Obama's change was to change the US into his ancestral home...Kenya.

I find it ironic that China wants us to give them money from this treaty.  Isn't it China whom we are borrowing money from?

I guess they won't be happy until they own us lock, stock, and barrel.