News24

US memos expose climate 'dirty tricks'

2012-02-17 09:23

Washington - Leaked documents from a prominent US conservative think tank show how it sought to teach schoolchildren scepticism about global warming and planned other behind-the-scenes tactics using millions of dollars in donations from big corporate names.

The documents show that more than $14m of the money used by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute would come from one anonymous man.

Heartland is one of the loudest voices denying man-made global warming, hosting the largest international scientific conference of sceptics on climate change.

Several of its documents were leaked this week to the news media, showing the planning and money behind its efforts.

Heartland said some of the documents weren't accurate, but declined to be more specific.

Comments
  • robbie.crouch - 2012-02-17 09:30

    Skepticism is called thinking for oneself usually...

      modo - 2012-02-17 09:40

      In this case it is almost the exact opposite.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 12:21

      @Robbie: Skepticism does not mean the following: Let me deny the scientific evidence that exists (of manmade global warming), because then I am thinking for myself. 1) Humans are burning billions of tons of oil coal and gas. These activities are putting billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This is easily verifiable and SCIENTIFIC FACT. 2) The surface of the earth gets hit by energy that comes from the sun. A portion of this energy gets reflected away from the surface of the earth and some of this energy gets trapped by greenhouse gasses. SATELITES CAN MEASURE ACCURATELY THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT GETS TRAPPED AND THIS AMOUNT HAS INCREASED as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased. Once again THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. 3) The extra heat in the atmosphere creates an energy imbalance which causes the climate to change. This is Scientific fact, cause and effect. So there you have it. Being a skeptic is fine. But calling oneself a skeptic while denying the evidence is not.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 13:28

      @Ernst: I don't know who you got your "scientific facts" from, but please go and give that guy a moerse klap. Global warming has not been proved. Climate change, yes. but not global warming. There's no evidence that it's man-made. The planet has gone through cyclical climate changes since the beginning. And now for the clincher: A GAS CANNOT TRAP HEAT. Never could, never will. This is a blatant lie by the alarmists and taken as gospel truth by suckers such as yourself.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 13:57

      @ Sh....er: "Global warming has not been proved. Climate change, yes. but not global warming." ... Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm "There's no evidence that it's man-made. The planet has gone through cyclical climate changes since the beginning." Wrong. Humans are adding billions of tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. There is your evidence. "And now for the clincher: A GAS CANNOT TRAP HEAT. Never could, never will. This is a blatant lie by the alarmists and taken as gospel truth by suckers such as yourself. " HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You're not serious. If what you say is true, then the earth would be frozen and we would all be dead. Greenhouse gasses aid in keeping this planet from freezing up.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 14:46

      @ Ernst: Dude, the hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper and deeper. I did not dispute the Greenhouse Effect, which has been in effect since Earth got an atmosphere. I said that gases cannot trap energy, and I stand by my statement. You wrote: "The surface of the earth gets hit by energy that comes from the sun. A portion of this energy gets reflected away from the surface of the earth and some of this energy gets trapped by greenhouse gasses. SATELITES CAN MEASURE ACCURATELY THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT GETS TRAPPED AND THIS AMOUNT HAS INCREASED as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased. Once again THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT." Wow, you even state (as a scientific fact) that satellites can accurately measure this "trapping". Greenhouse gases do not TRAP energy, it RADIATES it (quite the opposite of trapping, won't you agree?). Educate yourself by reading the excellent Wikipedia article. To save you some time: "Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. To maintain its own equilibrium, it re-radiates the absorbed heat in all directions, both upwards and downwards. This results in more warmth below, while still radiating enough heat back out into deep space from the upper layers to maintain overall thermal equilibrium. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below."

  • rudilemmer - 2012-02-17 09:35

    Don't think we need a leaked document to tell us that the U.S. was down playing Global Warming for years (secretly or not) Oil companies too strong in the U.S. (well the whole world)............

  • marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 09:38

    'dirty tricks' is the reason so many believe in man made global warming

      modo - 2012-02-17 09:51

      Including the 97-98% of climate scientists who are active in the research and are literally the top experts in the world on the matter? Sure, they've all been fooled.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 10:12

      The fact is more and more scientist are questioning global warming theory after records show that since 1997 there have been no further warming, It’s a dirty trick of the media to ignore and hide the facts that water vapour and ozone gas is also greenhouse gasses. There is 3 times more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2, water vapour is also increasing as a reactive result of warming. it’s a dirty trick of the media to teach children that CO2 is not a pollutant in stead of a normal component of a healthy atmosphere. Without it life on earth will die, its not a pollutant. It is a dirty trick of the media to hide and ignore global dimming theory that suggest that particle pollutions such as smoke causes a cooling effect. We always find a cooling effect where volcanoes erupt because of this. It is a dirty trick to program people that there is any truth in extensive long-term linear and exponential extrapolations of short term trends and cycles. It is dirty tricks to hide and ignore the effect the solar cycles have on climate as there is perfect parallels between solar irradiance and temperature over thousands of years Such as the Maunder Minimum between 1645 and 1715 cause by sun spot minima’s that lead to a small ace age in Europe where solar irradiance was 3.5 W/m2 less than now. It is a dirty trick to put thermometers in cities where temperature is higher

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 10:12

      It is a dirty trick to select data sets which produce the best results to support global warming and consider data sets not representing the effect as outliers. It is a dirty statistical trick to take a trend of 10 years and extrapolate to a prediction of 100 years with statistical tools without indicating how terribly wide the confidence margins are. Meaning there is no confidence in the extrapolation. It is a dirty trick of Al Gore presented graphs in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" showing carbon dioxide (CO2) and temperature change from Antarctic Vostok ice core records as evidence that CO2 causes climate change. But he got “cause and effect” reversed! The record actually shows that the CO2 increase lagged the warming by about 800 years. Temperature increases cause the oceans to expel CO2, increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It’s a dirty trick to say CO2 caused global warming while CO2 is produced by the warming effect. The fact is the global warming activists are the ones pulling the most dirty tricks to scare the public. More dirty trick than all propagandas known to our modern times. The author of this article has very little knowledge about the degree of scientific research that contradicts the global warming theory as it stands today.

      modo - 2012-02-17 10:27

      Marius, all ridiculously biased, uninformed, not to mention outdated, standard climate denier propaganda. If you review many sources rather than just one you will realise how inflated and dishonest almost every single one of those claims is. Again, it would be foolish to trust anyone other than the unbiased, non-politically motivated climate scientists when it comes to this issue. And they have reached a unanimous consensus on the issue.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 12:17

      @Marius: 1) Humans are burning billions of tons of oil coal and gas. These activities are putting billions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. This is easily verifiable and SCIENTIFIC FACT. 2) The surface of the earth gets hit by energy that comes from the sun. A portion of this energy gets reflected away from the surface of the earth and some of this energy gets trapped by greenhouse gasses. SATELITES CAN MEASURE ACCURATELY THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT GETS TRAPPED AND THIS AMOUNT HAS INCREASED as greenhouse gas concentrations have increased. Once again THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT. 3) The extra heat in the atmosphere creates an energy imbalance which causes the climate to change. This is Scientific fact, cause and effect. So there you have it. Being a skeptic is fine. But calling oneself a skeptic while denying the evidence is not.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 12:40

      I think your 98% scientist work for bosses. Is water vapour an green house gas? Is water vapour 3 times more in the atmosphere than CO2? Is water vapour levels rising? Is ozone a greenhouse gas? Does the oceans absorb 1/4 of the atmospheres CO2? Does the increase in temperature of water reduce CO2 saturation level? Does the reduction in air pressure reduce the CO2 saturation level? Does global warming affect water temperature? Are there two computer simulators that give the same results? is it not true that, if all bacteria on earth is placed on its surface that it will form a 15m thick layer around the planet and that most bacteria either produce C02 or methane Isn't it true that most methane in the atmosphere is due to bacteria Isn't it true when the sun last time went into sunspot minima that the northern hemisphere experienced a mini ice age? Isn’t it true that not most but all thermal energy comes from the sun? Isn’t it true that solar cycles will have a direct effect on global temperature if irradiance drop with 3W/m2 Isn’t it true that the sun is currently at solar maxima with most activity in a long time? Isn't it true that the highest temperature since 1979 was recorded in 1998 and never again?

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 12:40

      Isn't it true that partial pollution results in global dimming not global warming Isn't it true that C02 patterns lag the heating patterns? Isn’t it true that CO2 drops and rises according to seasons as the reparatory characteristics of plants and trees change by season. Isn’t it true that CO2 is a vital part of the atmosphere and life on earth depends on it, and therefore it is not classified as a pollutant? If you can answer "no" on any of the above you must go back university and study your science. Because the media will never use any of these facts in the same sentence as global warming. Even NASA is now stating that “global warming alarmist are wrong” http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/NASA-Global-Warming-Alarmists/2011/07/28/id/405200

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 13:01

      @modo please tell me who is the "the unbiased, non-politically motivated climate scientists", you tell me who’s salaries are paid by carbon tax and who’s organisation are getting funding, which companies are profiting from green technology. are they the "the unbiased, non-politically motivated climate scientists" you are talking about because the last time I heard a climatologist from a academical institution to say something about global warming, his last words was "it's not a problem for thousands of years" the information I form my opinion from say the same thing. You call my data outdated, global warming until 2000 show a sharp trend in warming, setting off major alarms world wide, data until 2011 show that temperatures dropped since 1998. @Modo I really cannot help to think it is your data that is outdated. I can point each and every fact I mentioned to a reliable source of scientific research including wikipedea ext. So you can believe what the media taught you, I will believe what the sciences in biology, climate and astronomy is showing me. I still want to know where you get the info that 98% of scientist support the manmade global warming theory.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 13:17

      @Marius: "please tell me who is the "the unbiased, non-politically motivated climate scientists", you tell me who’s salaries are paid by carbon tax and who’s organisation are getting funding, which companies are profiting from......." Sweeping statements, once again. Your assumption that scientists are cooking up manmade global warming because their salaries depend on is utter BS. There is much more money behind the fossil feul industry than the green industry. Tackling MANMADE global warming is going to spur technological innovation and eliminate technological stagnation as we currently have because of inaction.

      modo - 2012-02-17 13:29

      Marius, again, your references are extremely biased and uninformed. All your points are doing nothing but clouding the issue. Most of them are completely irrelevant not to mention completely untrue. Do a simple Google search to verify my point that 98% of climate scientists support the notion of anthropomorphic climate change. And it is NOT the media that is propagating it, if anything they are on your side AGAINST the scientists. As someone who seems to show interest in science I'm sure you have respect for the scientific method and the peer-review process. Please go and research what the peer-reviewed scientific literature (ie. unbiased, evidence-based papers) has to say about this issue, and you will find that you are siding with a tiny minority of the people with the credentials to express their opinion on this matter. I could do what you do and list point after point why global warming is an issue, and indeed a man-made issue and it will do nothing but obfuscate the real issue (as well as my throw my hat into a childish shouting competition), which is where the scientific consensus points. It's an overwhelming consensus and I'm afraid in academic circles this argument was over years ago.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 13:50

      @ Ernst and Modo: Before you make your names krater any further, please answer Marius' questions above, instead of responding with nonsensical answer like "sweeping statements" and spreading alarmist FUD. Please refute one of his facts or answer "no" to one of his questions. Just one, please. Ple-e-e-e-e-ease? PS: Exclude the question about the computer simulations, it's asked the wrong way round. No two simulations have ever been the same, because there is no reliable or consistent data to base the simulations on.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 13:52

      @Shistirrer: To answer all questions asked by Marius, please visit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/ Oh and you are the guy making his name crater.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 13:54

      1) You haven’t been able to contradict ANY of the facts I mentioned regarding the scientific fats. The facts what contradict the manmade global warming theory will not be mentioned in media as it discredits the theory. 2) You have not been able to contradict NASA's latest finding that the computer models from “global warming alarmist” are proven wrong by the latest satellite remote sensing technology which put a lid on people who think they can draw linear regressions from short term data sets to extrapolate data into ridiculous predictions. 3) You have not been able to contradict the latest thermal records that show a decline in global temperature since 1998. 4) You have not been able to tell anyone in Europe that they are not really getting as cold as they think they do in the thermal minima. As the news reports “Europe Continues to Suffer Severe Winter Weather” http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Europe-Continues-to-Suffer-Severe-Winter-Weather-138711399.html wikipedia: Ireland was first hit by the snow on the morning of 27 November 2010. The morning of Saturday, 27 November, saw Ireland freezing in what could be a rather costly cold snap as it emerged that the extreme weather earlier in 2010 had cost a colossal €297m in insurance payouts, Scientists: Winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/scientists:-winter-could-be-the-coldest-europe-has-seen-in-the-last-1,000-years

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 13:55

      There is a reason they now talk about climate change and not global warming, the global warming theory got way too much scientific resistance since its propaganda started, the closest they can still get away with is the term climate change. I don’t say that man has not effect on climate, with 28 billion ton of C02 it has to have an effect, I argue that nature is beating us to it and human predictions are proved to be wrong, and biased as it leaves vital information out of the mass media to prevent the theory of being discredited with contradicting scientific facts. The fact is that we are still mostly in the last ice-age and the ice caps is what is left behind still, most of the earth existence it never had ice caps. 50 million years ago the polar areas was all swamp and humid. The earth is warming it self as it has after every one of the natural ice ages, every time rising back to average of 20°C, temperatures we in our human existence have never lived in, currently we are still way down around 15°C, the last ice age 18000 years ago was 10°C and the earth was heating ever since with some minor setbacks due to solar cycles and other natural events.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 13:59

      I just want to make a correction, the average temperature of the earth in it's hothouse state is 25° and not 20°C as I wrote it.

      modo - 2012-02-17 14:05

      Marius, just because you watched the great global warming swindle or someother such nonsense doesn't make you informed about something. "1) You haven’t been able to contradict ANY of the facts I mentioned regarding the scientific fats. The facts what contradict the manmade global warming theory will not be mentioned in media as it discredits the theory" Ok, how about this. You say - 'is it not true that, if all bacteria on earth is placed on its surface that it will form a 15m thick layer around the planet and that most bacteria either produce C02 or methane' 15 metre thick layer??? Please give me your reference for this junk. "2) You have not been able to contradict NASA's latest finding that the computer models from “global warming alarmist” are proven wrong by the latest satellite remote sensing technology which put a lid on people who think they can draw linear regressions from short term data sets to extrapolate data into ridiculous predictions." Go to this site to see what NASA really believe about climate change - http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Yip, you're wrong again.. "3) You have not been able to contradict the latest thermal records that show a decline in global temperature since 1998." Wrong again. Globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. Go ahead, ask me for the references, however Google is your friend. Only scientific papers now Marius...

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 14:07

      with or without humans, climate is extremely dynamic and it will necessarily change as it is a result of complex integrating cycles in nature where the most dominat cycles is found in the solar cycles. global warming must happen if the earth wants to recover out of the last ice age, if global warming is not happening it will mean we are probably falling back into an ice age as the earth fails to recover from the last ice age. Over millions of years to come with or without man, the earth might heat up but we would have to ask the Sun if we want to know for sure. It is a fact that all our thermal energy is a direct result of solar irradiation, we have no other source of heat.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 14:07

      @ Marius: Youre a classic example of a person that does not understand the difference between climate and weather. May I suggest you read the following: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      modo - 2012-02-17 14:09

      "4) You have not been able to tell anyone in Europe that they are not really getting as cold as they think they do in the thermal minima. As the news reports “Europe Continues to Suffer Severe Winter Weather” http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Europe-Continues-to-Suffer-Severe-Winter-Weather-138711399.html" You were right in one respect, there is a reason the term global warming was replaced by 'climate change'. It is so that misinformed people such as you can't make statements such as this. These MAN-MADE changes manifest themselves in extreme temperature shifts BOTH up and DOWN. So when you go on about how cold it has been in Europe, you are basically arguing against yourself.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 14:36

      I’m not arguing against myself if I say extreme cold is not global warming. How do you make sense of that???? I have not said that the extreme cold is caused by humans. I have said that humans may contribute, but nature is still in charge. You might not know it but water vapour make up 3 times more greenhouse gasses than C02, the 0.25-0.4% rise in CO2 has been over estimated with computer simulators that do not take in account thermal energy lost by the atmosphere as NASA have put it. The rise in water vapour may outperform the effect of CO2, you do know that the heating will cause a rise in water vapour don't you? Grade 6 science. you do know that 25% of all CO2 is in the oceans that makeup 2/3 of the earths surface don’t you? Well what will happen if temperature change or air pressure change? Think for yourself. Because global warming alarmist will never discus this openly or any natural contributors to climate change as it discredit their theory. There is a major difference between global warming and climate change, I acknowledge the existence of both, I argue that they are not manmade. I do not deny that man have some effect, I also argue there is nothing in the power of man to stop global warming or climate change, we don’t and never will have the energy to do it.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 14:55

      @Modo and Ernst - I tried to Google the 98% consensus by scientist that you mention, but only found it in decade-old articles. What I did find in all the recent articles, is that there is a growing scepticism that is already measured at 34%. I am a sceptic because I do not blindly believe spin and hype, I try to get a balanced view. Go educate yourself and read the article by Prof. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT - I think we will agree that he can be regarded as an eminent climate scientist. The article is an excellent insiders view of the hype around "global warming", how it started, how politics (not science!) turned it into the multi-billion industry it is today, and why it is all B.S. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html In the following two posts I am copying the last two paragraphs of the article.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 14:55

      "While there is nothing wrong in using those models in an experimental mode, there is a real dilemma when they predict potentially dangerous situations. Should scientists publicize such predictions since the models are almost certainly wrong? Is it proper to not publicize the predictions if the predicted danger is serious? How is the public to respond to such predictions? The difficulty would be diminished if the public understood how poor the models actually are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish. Nevertheless, with poor and uncertain models in wide use, predictions of ominous situations are virtually inevitable--regardless of reality."

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 14:55

      "Such weak predictions feed and contribute to what I have already described as a societal instability that can cascade the most questionable suggestions of danger into major political responses with massive economic and social consequences. I have already discussed some of the reasons for this instability: the existence of large cadres of professional planners looking for work, the existence of advocacy groups looking for profitable causes, the existence of agendas in search of saleable rationales, and the ability of many industries to profit from regulation, coupled with an effective neutralization of opposition. It goes almost without saying that the dangers and costs of those economic and social consequences may be far greater than the original environmental danger. That becomes especially true when the benefits of additional knowledge are rejected and when it is forgotten that improved technology and increased societal wealth are what allow society to deal with environmental threats most effectively. The control of societal instability may very well be the real challenge facing us."

      modo - 2012-02-17 14:56

      I give up Marius. I find it laughable that you attempt to undermine my scientific knowledge ('you do know that the heating will cause a rise in water vapour don't you? Grade 6 science.') when it is you who is arguing against a consensus that the scientific institution itself has reached. You are using pseudo-science to argue against science. 'Think for yourself' as you say. It is clear that you are just clinging onto the non-science of the climate deniers. Indeed it is true that water vapour is a major greenhouse gas. You completely ignore the crux of this issue, that the increase in CO2 increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, it turn creating a positive-feedback loop exacerbating the changes. (Yes, there are peer-reviewed scientific papers on this, unlike almost any single point you have brought up) I'm not going to convince you, as they say ignorance is bliss. Enjoy living in denial.

      modo - 2012-02-17 15:01

      And Shistirrer, you aren't going to win any arguments quoting one respectable scientists. Again I say, he is in the small minority and I could just as easily quote pages and pages of peer-reviewed papers written by equally-eminent scientists that far outnumber the sceptics.

      modo - 2012-02-17 15:03

      And your point about a decade old paper, just nonsense. A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers"

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 15:52

      Ernst What are you saying? The earths climate was constant for 2 billion years until humans came along? The suns irradiance have been constant for billions of years and since humans invented thermometers and technology we suddenly have climate change? Are denying the effect of the sun, and the degree that ice ages and global warming events have been naturally happening for 2billion years, are you really saying that 5 major ice ages are a myth? Or that 500milion years ago when there was 25 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than now, an now that there is a 0.25-0.4% increase that it must be humans doing that? Countless of astronomy magazines reporting on all the solar cycles and solar activates currently happening and their effect on climate. If your www.skepticalscience.com want to deny the influence of the sun, and natural climate shifts then you can join them. As I say even NASA's latest findings say global warming alarmist is proved wrong with irrational projection, I have not said that NASA do not believe in the existence in global warming or climate change we all know it's real. you say it is mostly or totally made by man and I say it's non-sense.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 15:54

      Modo, it's clear you didn't even read the article, but then you have the audacity to claim to be informed? If you did, you would have realized that "global warming" is big business, it's where the grant and research money is being thrown at. It therefore takes a very brave (and also with 1000% belief in his research and convictions) scientist not to follow the money. That's why I rather believe the sceptic scientists, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by standing up for their convictions. Also note that the sceptics, myself included, do not deny climate change. The difference is that we do not believe it is global warming (the extremes go both ways) or that it is anthropomorphic - it's cyclical.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 16:06

      @Marius: Please check the following link. In it all the classic myths about climate science are debunked, using peer-reviewed scientific literature. http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 21:07

      modo I can recall you are awaiting reference to my statement about all bacteria forming a 15m thick layer around the planet if taken out of the soil and oceans. i think you refered to it as "junk" well Bill Bryson, A short History of Nearly Everything, ISBN 0-552-99704-8, chapter "life itself- small world" in my book p372, i quote "Thomas Gold of Cornell University has estimated that if you took all the bacteria out of the Earth's interior and dumped them on the surface, they would cover the planet to a depth of 15 metres" Total human mass on earth amounts to 100million tons, bacteria 550,000 millions ton, about 5500 times more bacteria than human mass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)

  • Harald - 2012-02-17 10:23

    Really no time left for this kind of BS, esp because its about $$ and greed... We need to now be accountable to the environment for the REAL cost of doing business!!

  • E=MC2 - 2012-02-17 10:26

    "but declined to be more specific"...mmmm.

  • John - 2012-02-17 10:44

    All the planets in our solar system is heating up... Unless we have massive secret colonies on them, I'm inclined to think its a natural phenomena. People honestly don't believe that the temps on earth has stayed the same over the course of its existence, do they?

  • ludlowdj - 2012-02-17 10:55

    "Man Made" global warming is of course a money making lie, climate change has been proven to be a naturally occurring cycle that has and will exist for as long as the earth does. No effort by man will or could stop or reverse the cycle and living in grass huts living off the land after destroying all technology will not prevent a the next cycle. As for "scientists", most work for a sponsor and follow orders or lose funding, trying to say that the scientific community will not lie to us is like saying the government will not lie to us, Australia even wanted to kill of kangaroos because their "farts" added to global warming, that alone should have made people sit up and go "hang on a minute!"People really need to start investigating the world around them and the truth of nature and her patterns instead of leaving school with a certificate in dumbing down and spending their time buying into the nonsense being fed to them

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 12:18

      " As for "scientists", most work for a sponsor and follow orders or lose...." This is a sweeping statement.

  • antoinette.jordaan - 2012-02-17 11:59

    All being said and done, we, the people of this world, is bleeding this planet dry. Whether global warming is man made or not.......at least it's making people take notice of their impact on the world around them. I'm good with that.

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 13:11

      I agree, I think we need to look beyond global warming and its propaganda. The fact is that we need to manage pollution and destruction of nature better. If not for nature then at least for us. Nobody wants to drink dirty water, or see forest turn to deserts as we chop down trees. Nobody wants an ocean without fish. Nobody wants to get up coughing from smoke and pollutants in the atmosphere. I'm with you on that.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 13:47

      100%, well put. I am all for looking after this planet, after all, it's the only one we have. I am however against governments and big business using FUD and lies to extort "carbon taxes" and money for "carbon offsets" from us. Rather be honest to the people, embrace the reality of CLIMATE CHANGE and EXTREME WEATHER PATTERNS (not global warming!!! please try to convince the people who are literally freezing to death in Europe in one of the coldest winters on record, that it's caused by global warming) and research the best way for mankind to cope with it.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 13:58

      @ Shistirrer: "Global warming has not been proved. Climate change, yes. but not global warming." ... Please see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm "There's no evidence that it's man-made. The planet has gone through cyclical climate changes since the beginning." Wrong. Humans are adding billions of tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. There is your evidence. "And now for the clincher: A GAS CANNOT TRAP HEAT. Never could, never will. This is a blatant lie by the alarmists and taken as gospel truth by suckers such as yourself. " HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! You're not serious. If what you say is true, then the earth would be frozen and we would all be dead. Greenhouse gasses aid in keeping this planet from freezing up. You are making your name crater mate.

      modo - 2012-02-17 14:14

      @Ernst - Any idea why these guys are so adamantly denying the facts and consensus? It seems they passionately just don't want to believe it.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 14:33

      @modo: They cannot accept the fact that because of human technological stagnation, we are in the process of making this planet uninhabitable.

      Shistirrer - 2012-02-17 15:42

      The difference is that we think for ourselves and don't just believe any hogwash.

  • Rory - 2012-02-17 13:57

    Hell, global warming in Europe is really getting out of hand... more snow then they'vehad in decades! Uh, we'll spin that into climate change... people will lap it up.

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 14:06

      @ Rory: Youre a classic example of a person that does not understand the difference between climate and weather. May I suggest you read the following: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather-intermediate.htm and http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      marius.dumas - 2012-03-01 12:31

      Yes Rory, some people believe so much in "global warming", that even if the earth is cooling, will they still call it warming (scrach my head)

  • Rory - 2012-02-17 14:00

    Hell, global warming is really getting out of hand in the world... er, more snow than we've had in decades! "Let's just spin it around and call it climate change, people will lap it up." ...and so they have, right on que. Maybe there wouldn't be an issue if addressed air pollution.

  • Rudie - 2012-02-17 14:47

    I wonder how much money was spent to orchestrate this "leak".

  • marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 15:55

    I was asked to use Google so here we go: Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Honorary Fellow, South African Institution of Civil Engineering; Member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994 to 2000. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/climate%20change%20science%20is%20an%20unverified%20hypothesis.pdf http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/12._The_climate_of_the_last_millenium.html http://web.me.com/uriarte/Earths_Climate/13._Warming.html The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php Climate change is on its deathbed. http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/memo%2003.12%20deathbed.pdf http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=453 http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454 http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=455 http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=456 http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=457 http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=458 http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm here are some references to other facts I mentioned on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

      Ernst - 2012-02-17 16:11

      @Marius: Are your sources based on PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC literature? i.e. Has the information you are referring to been scrutinized by experts in climate science?

      marius.dumas - 2012-02-17 22:43

      I don't need peer review from people in the same school of though as I am to know that wikipedia, academics from universities and authors of science books have reasonably acceptable level of information.

  • marius.dumas - 2012-02-18 22:58

    Here on Wikipedia we can see the relationship between solar cycles and temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation The problem I see is that global warming is a multidiscipline issue and not only a issue for climatologists. It’s an issue that requires the studies of astronomers, biologists, physicists ext. Only relying on the input of climatologist who feed the media is a mistake. National geographic reports on finding that both Mars and the Earth shows signs of warming. Where do we need more evidence to suggest the main force behind global warming is the sun, since both planets are experiencing simultaneous warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html I feel that there is enough arguments for a theory against manmade global warming to consider resistance to the manmade warming theory as reasonable. The only fact is on this issue, that global warming and climate change are only hypothesis, theories, there is no solid evidence on the existing theory to call it a fact.

  • Zion - 2012-02-27 16:09

    In order to be of any value the article should be re-written. It is trying to say something but seems hesitant to say so.

  • pages:
  • 1