Climategate and Media lack of Interest

[Ace73]

The Climategate scam is being reported in the mainstream British press;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...rst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

But our mainstream media doesn't even mention it. What is going on here??

If the science underpinning AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming) is flawed than shouldn't this be making national headlines?

Our mainstream media is a joke, they are more concerned with why Tigerwoods crashed his car.
Also notice the media lack of interest in the ETS and what effects it will have on the average joe citizen. So much for the media keeping an eye on the Politicians and keeping them in check. They are totally corrupted by the looks of things and can't be relied on to keep the general population informed on matters of importance.

 

[Strannik]

news.com.au wrote about it about a week or so ago, when the e-mails have been revealed
i think the title of the article <someone> laughs at aussie's death, or something like that

 

[topcropper]

Get ready for a barrage of verbal diarrea from labor and the media after this hottest ever November over a massive part of Australia. Not good timing.

My home town recorded 5.5 degrees above average for the month, and broke the record for the hottest ever November from 1919, and was not far from the hottest ever day for any month.

However, the other monthly records would indicate there is nothing much to worry about. Hottest ever months in my home town since 1882,.....

Jan, 1952
Feb, 1926
Mar, 1942
Apr, 2005
May, 1910
Jun, 1914
Jul, 1973
Aug, 1982
Sep, 1910
Oct, 1988
Nov, 2009, breaking the record from 1919
Dec, 1923


See ya's.

 

[buzzlightyear]

Get ready for a barrage of verbal diarrea from labor after this hottest ever November over a massive part of Australia. Not good timing.

Michael Ronaldson (Lib Senator) mentoned this in the context of the ETS debate, double dissolution and possible election early in the new year. An easy scare campaign for the ALP in the middle of summer.

As for climategate, well, I wouldn't have a clue if there is a smoking gun or just some out of context emails from a few scientists, but I amazed at the lack of focus on this, especially on the ABC. (What a surprise!) And I am loathe to turn on Fox News (US) to listen to their usual rantings.

Ah, no lefties saying diversity of media ownership is required now, huh!

And why is it that we need the ETS legislation done before Copenhagen again? All we will have out of Denmark, is an agreement to agree. Surely we can finalise after the world agrees on the rules.

And why is it that Costello when introducing the GST had to know the impact down to every last bit of detail about the effect on prices, but everyone seems to be willing to let this ETS go through without any real understanding of its impact on the economy.

 

[topcropper]

Just did Melbourne and Sydney too.
Hottest ever months, Melbourne since 1855, Sydney since 1858.

month......Melbourne.......Sydney

Jan..........1908..............1896
Feb..........1898..............1998
Mar..........1940..............2006
Apr...........2005.............1922
May..........1866.............1958
Jun...........1957.............1957
Jul............1975.............1975
Aug..........1982.............1995
Sep..........2006.............1980
Oct..........1940.............1888
Nov..........2009.............1894
Dec..........2005.............1990

Melbourne broke the November record from 1862, Sydney's November wasn't a record. Neither Melbourne or Sydney broke all time high daily temps for November according to my info.

And weather info from small towns should be accurate. Once you start looking at big cities it gets a bit dodgy. The bigger the city, the more the heat generation of that city from all the cement, air conditioners etc, so you'd expect big cities to have hotter temps in more recent times.


See ya's.

 

[MissMuffitt]

ABC radio national was talking about those emails yesterday afternoon at about 4.20pm. So it is out in the media, just not really being pushed it would seem...

 

[handyandy]

The real reason why there will be climate change in the future as in the past.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/eos/volcanoes.pdf

If you do some research into core ice studies then you will no doubt understand that all previous climatic changes are as a results of volcanic activity (barring the odd meteor). Not necessarily the large eruptions but those that pump out huge amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.

The sulfur dioxide then converts into sulfuric acid which in the atmosphere acts as a massive reflector cooling the planet.

Beyond the effects of volcanoes the earth is actually in an unstable path around the sun this has a dramatic impact on the ice sheets with the earth having enjoyed a 10,000 year summer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

To me the real and present danger is the rate at which the human population is using up all the natural resources of the world and the ETS does not address this issue. The irony is that a severe recession depression would immediately stop excessive consumption at the current levels but instead of the world governments letting this happen they go out of their way to encourage further spending.

Cheers

 

[Witzl]

The real reason why there will be climate change in the future as in the past.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/eos/volcanoes.pdf

If you do some research into core ice studies then you will no doubt understand that all previous climatic changes are as a results of volcanic activity (barring the odd meteor). Not necessarily the large eruptions but those that pump out huge amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.

The sulfur dioxide then converts into sulfuric acid which in the atmosphere acts as a massive reflector cooling the planet.

I mentioned this in the other climate change thread too. One volcanic eruption would spew out more "carbon emissions" than we even could in a century.
When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, this is what it reportedly did to global temperatures:

Average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.

And yeah.... i think our media is p#ssweak for not highlighting this "climategate" thingo properly. Our media is just crap.

 

[Ace73]

From what I have been reading it looks obvious that the planet is in constant change in regards to warming and cooling. If man thinks he can change the what the planet is doing than we are seriously deluded.

I am all for looking after the planet in regards to reducing pollution and stopping deforestation, but the whole thing about CO2's being the enemy looks like its complete rubbish. But you wouldn't know that by reading the mainstream media as they are totally behind this ETS, which looks like it will be dead for awhile at least now that Tony Abbott is the new leader.

 

[HiEquity]

If the science underpinning AGW(Anthropogenic Global Warming) is flawed than shouldn't this be making national headlines?

Maybe it isn't then...

From what I have been reading it looks obvious that the planet is in constant change in regards to warming and cooling. If man thinks he can change the what the planet is doing than we are seriously deluded.

Perhaps you should widen your reading... If you are saying that the fastest increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century (that we know about in the history of the habitable earth) was just "nature doing its thing" and had nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels then I have some beachfront real estate to sell you in Alice Springs.

Our impact on the planet's atmosphere is not questioned by even the sceptics. Their issue is what impact that will have on the climate and over what timeframe. Given the absence of detailed evidence available (the earth hasn't seen these CO2 concentrations for quite awhile) it would perhaps be prudent to take a risk management approach to these issues - no?

I am all for looking after the planet in regards to reducing pollution and stopping deforestation, but the whole thing about CO2's being the enemy looks like its complete rubbish.

Really? Oh well there must be nothing to worry about then so let's just do nothing... that sounds like prudent risk management...

 

[Sunfish]

Oh well there must be nothing to worry about then so let's just do nothing... that sounds like prudent risk management...

First sensible thing you've said.

 

[HiEquity]

First sensible thing you've said.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Aaron Sice]

okay seriously -who is the new lib leader?

i've seen three versions in three days - i'm confused.

 

[BayView]

Get ready for a barrage of verbal diarrea from labor and the media after this hottest ever November over a massive part of Australia. Not good timing.

My home town recorded 5.5 degrees above average for the month, and broke the record for the hottest ever November from 1919, and was not far from the hottest ever day for any month.

However, the other monthly records would indicate there is nothing much to worry about. Hottest ever months in my home town since 1882,.....

Jan, 1952
Feb, 1926
Mar, 1942
Apr, 2005
May, 1910
Jun, 1914
Jul, 1973
Aug, 1982
Sep, 1910
Oct, 1988
Nov, 2009, breaking the record from 1919
Dec, 1923


See ya's.

Thanks Bill.

Always good to hear from someone who is actually "on the ground" and in the middle of things.

Notice how the record was nearly 100 years ago. But hey; isn't the world getting really hot now all of a sudden thanks to us polluting, industrious evil humans?

I'm loving this; I've been banging on forever about what a load of BS it all is.

Maybe I'm right after all...

Had to laugh at the news tonight; they were predicting a 1.4 metre sea level rise by 2100.

Considering the sea levels haven't altered in about what? oh; 100 million years or whatever, and now we are going to have a massive one in less than 100 years.

yeah.......

 

[topcropper]

Thanks Bill........

No worries Jack

Considering the sea levels haven't altered in about what? oh; 100 million years or whatever, and now we are going to have a massive one in less than 100 years.
yeah.......

Not really. Our aboriginals walked here 40 thousand years ago in the last ice age when the oceans were up to 120 metres shallower and New Guinea, Australia and Tassie were all one. Then when the current interglacial started about ten thousand years ago the land bridges were flooded.

The oceans have been at all different levels.

See ya's.

 

[MissMuffitt]

Climategate: Science Corrupted

Just got sent this link in my email.
Found it very interesting, well worth a look I feel...

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/741.html

 

[Ace73]

Maybe it isn't then...



Perhaps you should widen your reading... If you are saying that the fastest increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century (that we know about in the history of the habitable earth) was just "nature doing its thing" and had nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels then I have some beachfront real estate to sell you in Alice Springs.

There used to be an inland sea in the centre of Australia so maybe there will be again at some stage in the future.

Our impact on the planet's atmosphere is not questioned by even the sceptics. Their issue is what impact that will have on the climate and over what timeframe. Given the absence of detailed evidence available (the earth hasn't seen these CO2 concentrations for quite awhile) it would perhaps be prudent to take a risk management approach to these issues - no?

This is where you are wrong. Here is an old article that I quickly found, but I have also read on numerous other occasions where there are plenty of scientists that reject the current global warming theory. So to try and say that even the sceptics aren't questioning our impact on the planet's atmosphere is drawing a long bow.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=64734

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Really? Oh well there must be nothing to worry about then so let's just do nothing... that sounds like prudent risk management...

My argument is we need to be targeting the real enemy and not wasting time and money on the wrong one. It was only 30 yrs ago they were telling everyone we are heading into a new devastating ice age. So what is it?? Are we heading into an ice age (which yes will happen again in the future as it has always occurred) or are we warming (which also occurs naturally).
The planet has actually been cooling for the last 11 yrs, even the bbc ran a story on this and they are learn heavily towards the whole climate change agenda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

 

[HiEquity]

This is where you are wrong. Here is an old article that I quickly found, but I have also read on numerous other occasions where there are plenty of scientists that reject the current global warming theory. So to try and say that even the sceptics aren't questioning our impact on the planet's atmosphere is drawing a long bow.

From the website you linked to:

"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

So, as I stated previously, the fact that we are raising atmospheric CO2 levels is not disputed. Their beef is what that means for the climate. Both sides agree it likely means change - some suggest that change may be positive. Others suggest it will be negative. I believe it will likely be both depending on where you live but the risk outweighs the benefits due to the likely higher frequency and intensity of storms resulting from the higher evaporation. I'm not keen on my kids taking that risk any more than necessary.

 

[Aaron Sice]

is anyone else drawing comparisons between carbon trading sceme and baron vladimir's business from dune....?

 

[our obsession]

...and a little other interesting reading:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/

Statisticians reject global cooling

Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data

(by: By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

updated 4:47 p.m. ET Oct. 26, 2009)

Excerpt:

WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some global warming skeptics are claiming.

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years......