"Climate-Gate" could be back.. New release of emails.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails


A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists' handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the "sheer volume of material" meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

In the new release a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves "FOIA" then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.

One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

"Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."

The use of points instead of commas to mark the thousands when writing a number – highly unusual in both the UK or US – is sure to lead to speculation about the nationality of those responsible.

The message then includes a sample of cherry-picked quotes selected from a small handful of the emails focusing on apparent disagreements between the scientists, the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and attempts to block climate sceptics from securing documents from the scientists via freedom of information requests. Many of the same issues were highlighted in the 2009 release.

One of the most damaging claims in 2009 was that Prof Phil Jones, the head of the UEA's Climatic Research Institute had deleted emails to avoid FOI request. One of the reviews into the content of the emails, conducted by Sir Muir Russell, concluded that "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" - something that Jones has denied. At the time CRU was coming under sustained pressure by an organised campaign to release information, which the scientists saw as distracting from their work.

The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: "I've been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC's fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process".

In a statement, the University of East Anglia said: "While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems. If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks."

It continued: "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the university and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so."

Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".

When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

He said, the people behind the release were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

An ongoing investigation by Norfolk Police into the 2009 release of emails has so far failed to result in any charges or arrests. A spokesperson said: "We are aware of the release of the document cache. The contents will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing."






I'm happy with this.. It's considered stupid now by the masses to reject the idea of manmade global warming when it's not stupid at all. We aren't even close to having a long enough timeline of our own actions to conclude that our theories about them are true without dispute.

At least these emails might mix up opinions again for a while.. My housemate last night randomly said she thinks anyone who doesn't believe in climate change is retarded. In 20 minutes of showing her stuff online, I had brought her back to a stable point where she admitted that ok, we can't be sure.

I'm not denying climate change but I'm definitely not jumping on the idea that it's true either. Too many holes and too much bullshlt.. Hopefully these emails will add even more holes and bring us more "global warming" or "climate change" skeptics. Which are we even supposed to call it now?

RichieC

if there was anything juicy in them they'd of been released last time... this won't have the impact the first one did.. and the best they could mine from that was absolute bull****.

Fk these people trying to disrupt these climate change summits.

nothing but low rent shills.

starbelgrade

I just printed off the first post 1500 times & used the paper to set fire to a forest.

Up yours, Green Party!

John Doe1

starbelgrade wrote: »

I just printed off the first post 1500 times & used the paper to set fire to a forest.

Up yours, Green Party!

well that wasnt very nice was it:D

smk89

Lets think, 38 trillion buys you global energy independence, liveable cities, increased standards of living, recycling, increased biodiversity and new technologies.... or 10 Iraq wars.

No matter if climate change is real or not it stands to make the world a better place.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

if there was anything juicy in them they'd of been released last time... this won't have the impact the first one did.. and the best they could mine from that was absolute bull****.

Fk these people trying to disrupt these climate change summits.

nothing but low rent shills.

From what I gathered, there are no emails from before 2009, the time of the last release.. So what are you talking about? And why is it BS? Some of last stuff released was exceptionally dodgy considering the power these guys weild.

Capt'n Midnight

"climate gate" is only an issue in the English speaking media

Any people I've met abroad tend to believe in climate change, because it's drier than they can remember and there isn't as much water in the dam as there used to be.



Wake me up when the glaciers re-gain their lost ice or when the north pole is covered in ice year round and we are no longer having 50 year weather events every few years.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"climate gate" is only an issue in the English speaking media

Any people I've met abroad tend to believe in climate change, because it's drier than they can remember and there isn't as much water in the dam as there used to be.



Wake me up when the glaciers re-gain their lost ice or when the north pole is covered in ice year round and we are no longer having 50 year weather events every few years.

Medieval Warm Period.. I don't care if it's been overdone before. Most people who outright support the idea we're damaging the planet haven't even heard of it.

Imo, it's much too early for people like you to have your mind made up to such a point that you ridicule anyone who doesn't. The media needs some of the other side to remind people that it mightnt be true.

Just before the climate change deniers get here and start spewing off their usual inaccurate spiels I thought I'd pre empt them and debunk some of their more common claims before they even make them.

1. If there's global warming why were the last few winters so cold?

-Learn the difference between weather and climate.

2. The ice core analyses show that the earth has gone through previous heating and coolong cycles.

-No climate scientist denies this. The difference between the current warming and previous cycles is not the magnitude but the velocity of change. We're seeing the kind of warming in tens of years that previously would have taken thousands.

3. The sea will absorb the CO2

- Not quickly enough and even if it did, it would acidify the oceans to the point where marine animals shells would be dissolved by the water, leading to a collapse of the marine food chain.

4. There are vested interests involved in promoting the idea of climate change.

- not half as many as there are denying it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Medieval Warm Period.. I don't care if it's been overdone before. Most people who outright support the idea we're damaging the planet haven't even heard of it.

Imo, it's much too early for people like you to have your mind made up to such a point that you ridicule anyone who doesn't. The media needs some of the other side to remind people that it mightnt be true.

Looks like I was too late. Post-emptive debunking it is!

oppenheimer1

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/picture1b2.jpg


Does it matter if the climate change theory is wrong??

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Just before the climate change deniers get here and start spewing off their usual inaccurate spiels I thought I'd pre empt them and debunk some of their more common claims before they even make them.

1. If there's global warming why were the last few winters so cold?

-Learn the difference between weather and climate.

2. The ice core analyses show that the earth has gone through previous heating and coolong cycles.

-No climate scientist denies this. The difference between the current warming and previous cycles is not the magnitude but the velocity of change. We're seeing the kind of warming in tens of years that previously would have taken thousands.

3. The sea will absorb the CO2

- Not quickly enough and even if it did, it would acidify the oceans to the point where marine animals shells would be dissolved by the water, leading to a collapse of the marine food chain.

4. There are vested interests involved in promoting the idea of climate change.

- not half as many as there are denying it.

Can you tell me what is happening in tens of years instead of thousands? Genuinely curious..

As I've said in every post, I'm undecided. So any dlckhead who attacks my posts really is a dlckhead.

dlofnep

I'm with Christopher Hitchens on his views on climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6WechLhw

We only have one earth, and we can't afford to be wrong.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you tell me what is happening in tens of years instead of thousands? Genuinely curious..

Temperature increase, like I just said. If you like I can link you to whole bunch of scientific papers.

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've said in every post, I'm undecided. So any dlckhead who attacks my posts really is a dlckhead.

Thinly veiled ad hominem attack. Classy.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Medieval Warm Period..

...
Imo, it's much too early for people like you to have your mind made up to such a point that you ridicule anyone who doesn't. The media needs some of the other side to remind people that it mightnt be true.

Not this crap again

The media is the problem. It's not a political election where the result is 50:50 (most governments have slightly over 50% of the seats and possibly just under 50% of the vote / electorate) balance is fair in those cases because politics is about getting to 50%. For climate change we are well past three sigma. You might as talk about intelligent falling as a balance for the theory of gravity.

Did humans cause it , is it solely part of a natural cycle ? Or is it a little from column A and a little from column B ? with the twist that there are many mechanisms that could cause a step change for the worse. Point is that even if you truly believe that it is a natural cycle, you can't argue that we have exacerbated the effect by releasing gases , deforestation etc.

just a reminder that we already dominate the Nitrogen cycle
http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N7/moeller.html

We have harnessed the power of fossil fuels to fix more than 400 billion tons of nitrogen every year, twice the amount that natural processes (microbes, lightning strikes, and volcanic eruptions) capture.

This technology has proven to be a great boon to agriculture. We can supply our crops with a steady stream of a critical nutrients, increasing food production and ensuring consistent harvests. Abundant fertilizers supported the Green Revolution — a transition to higher-yielding (but also higher-maintenance) crop varieties. Today, some two billion people are fed by the extra food the fertilizers allow us to grow, and the Haber-Bosch process supports 40 percent of the world’s protein production.

Too bad there are flies in the ointment.

Tripling the magnitude of Earth’s natural nitrogen fixation process comes with dramatic consequences. All the extra nitrogen we pull out of the atmosphere must somehow find its way back, and in the process it upsets the balance of countless biological communities.

what was the CO2 level in the medieval warm period ?

and of the total human carbon emissions since we discovered coal what % have happened in the last 50 years ?

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've said in every post, I'm undecided. So any dlckhead who attacks my posts really is a dlckhead.

Sure you are...sure you are.

Climate change!
The climate's always changing, it always has and always will, with or without mankind fúcking it up!

No one can honestly say to what extent man-made pollution is actually affecting the climate, just that it is a bit/lot (delete as applicable) and policies will not reverse the damage already done.

The man-made input to the environment will only decrease when mankind decreases in population after depleting all the accessible fossil fuels.

The best we can ever hope for is that nature is more resilient than the environmentalists believe.

/gloomy report
PS: I'll be long gone by then.

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

Climate change!
The climate's always changing, it always has and always will, with or without mankind fúcking it up!

Not at the rate it is now, that is the issue.

PS: I'll be long gone by then.

Yes, it will thousands of years down the road :rolleyes: We just had 2 people die in the recent flood, people are dying all over the World in unprecedented weather events this year, it is happening now, wake up.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

Not at the rate it is now, that is the issue.



Yes, it will thousands of years down the road :rolleyes: We just had 2 people die in the recent flood, people are dying all over the World in unprecedented weather events this year, it is happening now, wake up.

I remember snow in June 1975, severe floods in 1968 a heatwave in 1976, plus a whole lot of "extreme" events.

Nothing new. We're just better informed these days!

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember snow in June 1975, severe floods in 1968 a heatwave in 1976, plus a whole lot of "extreme" events.

Nothing new. We're just better informed these days!

Yes, that is right individual events over decades is exactly what is happening now. Record rain, snow, temperatures, droughts etc, they all happened before, oh wait......

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

Yes, that is right individual events over decades is exactly what is happening now. Record rain, snow, temperatures, droughts etc, they all happened before, oh wait......

Exactly, extreme weather events happen all the time!

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly, extreme weather events happen all the time!

I see you don't get sarcasm. I said "record" events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Start with this page and read more, then come back.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

I see you don't get sarcasm. I said "record" events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change Start with this page and read more, then come back.

I'm also talking about extreme events, records are only a recent thing because there was someone there to take the record!

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm also talking about extreme events, records are only a recent thing because there was someone there to take the record!

So you know there were extreme events when there was no evidence of this, what evidence are you basing it on? Never before in recorded history has there been as many extreme events in such a short space of time and global temperatures have been rising steadily, all data points to this.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

So you know there were extreme events when there was no evidence of this, what evidence are you basing it on? Never before in recorded history has there been as many extreme events in such a short space of time and global temperatures have been rising steadily, all data points to this.

What about unrecorded history!

Edit: I think you need to reread my original comment!

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

What about unrecorded history!

Edit: I think you need to reread my original comment!

Climate has been recorded back thousands of years in rock formations, ice cores etc, individual events have not for obvious reasons. Your original comment is a bit of a contradiction saying climate is always changing and that man is causing this by a bit or a lot. Data points that we are having an impact, CO2 and other gasses can be measured. Your right in that it could be too late to stop it and population is a key factor.

FrostyJack

FrostyJack wrote: »

Climate has been recorded back thousands of years in rock formations, ice cores etc, individual events have not for obvious reasons. Your original comment is a bit of a contradiction saying climate is always changing and that man is causing this by a bit or a lot. Data points that we are having an impact, CO2 and other gasses can be measured. Your right in that it could be too late to stop it and population is a key factor.

Not contradictory at all, what it means is that mans influence on the climate could be minor or major, as in it could be resisting or assisting a natural variation trend.

Just because CO2 levels have risen, doesn't mean that it is the primary driver of the change, there are many other factors as well, some natural and some man-made.

FrostyJack

Deleted User wrote: »

mans influence on the climate could be minor or major, as in it could be resisting or assisting a natural variation trend.

Just because CO2 levels have risen, doesn't mean that it is the primary driver of the change, there are many other factors as well, some natural and some man-made.

All true.

Artur Foden

Is it changing? Most likely

Do I care? Nope

44leto

Terrible science the Global warming lobby get a hell of a lot more funding then the fossil fuel global warming "deniers", if you want to be a scientific pariah you simply deny CO2 is causing global warming, you quickly find yourself an unemployed scientist.

I am not denying global warming, but if a publicly funded body has being caught tinkering with data results, there is something going on. They are meant to analyse data, not analyse or release data that only conforms to their position.

mconigol

Climate change is a fact.

The causes are not know. There is investigation and research by a wide variety of people from different backgrounds who debate, discuss and dispute the observations that are made. The best theory emerges from these observations in the end. That's what science is.

In order for science to work the prevalent theories need to be challenged however.

Anyone who does this in a logical manner is fine in my book, no matter what side they come down on. It's the overzealous, preaching campaigners who annoy me and who ultimately do the most harm.

Personally I don't know and haven't done any research to inform myself. I have a quite dislike for man made climate change enthusiasts however mainly because I don't like being preached at and also because I don't like a serious issue being exploited as a revenue generating machine for incompetent politicians.

SeaFields

The referring to people as "deniers" is a horrendous term to use with all the historical connections that expression has. This choice of label has very much been done to gain this effect.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

What about unrecorded history!

you mean like lake sediments, tree rings, ice cores , isotope ratios ?

We know snowball earth was about 716.5 Million years ago.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

The media needs some of the other side to remind people that it mightnt be true.

Given the media's fucking terrible track record when it comes to reporting on science the idea that it's presenting "the other side" is laughable.
Doubly so, seeing as there isn't a legitimate other side.

karma_

I read recently where something like 97% of all experts and scientists agree that we are affecting the climate in negative way.

The reason we have so many doubters is because of vested interest groups have commissioned, basically bullshít reports and have sewn doubt into peoples minds via the media.

It's quite a crazy situation.

Kasabian

I love threads about weather/climate where most of the contributors probably haven't been outside the house in ages. :pac:

44leto

karma_ wrote: »

I read recently where something like 97% of all experts and scientists agree that we are affecting the climate in negative way.

The reason we have so many doubters is because of vested interest groups have commissioned, basically bullshít reports and have sewn doubt into peoples minds via the media.

It's quite a crazy situation.

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy train.

PS I am not denying global warming.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20much%20was%20spent%20on%20climate%20change&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimatequotes.com%2F2011%2F01%2F08%2Fhow-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money%2F&ei=MNrMTqzlGcTk4QTLo8Vl&usg=AFQjCNGW61plZK5d5C3pHOgPCu7FHYSDXA

hooradiation

hooradiation wrote: »

Given the media's fucking terrible track record when it comes to reporting on science the idea that it's presenting "the other side" is laughable.
Doubly so, seeing as there isn't a legitimate other side.

I think the emails of the top scientists pushing one side of the argument are a pretty good source.. Especially when they don't always point in the same direction as the information they publicly release.

karma_

44leto wrote: »

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy train.

PS I am not denying global warming.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=how%20much%20was%20spent%20on%20climate%20change&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimatequotes.com%2F2011%2F01%2F08%2Fhow-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money%2F&ei=MNrMTqzlGcTk4QTLo8Vl&usg=AFQjCNGW61plZK5d5C3pHOgPCu7FHYSDXA

I understand, and that's a fair point, however the opposite is also true, and this is too massive an issue to not play it as safely as possible.

Here's the report I was referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

My name is URL

Irrefutable evidence

44leto

karma_ wrote: »

I understand, and that's a fair point, however the opposite is also true, and this is too massive an issue to not play it as safely as possible.

Here's the report I was referring to: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

Once that Nobel prize winning report "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" was put to the main media it has proven to be false in many places. One if I remember was the Glaciers from the Himalayas will be gone in 25 years, that turned out to be more 300 years, plus sea level rise data also proved to be false. Other areas aswell, but I can't remember. So they shot themselves in the foot with that report to spite the massive funding they receive.

A lot more funding then the deniers.

I am going to ask you to do a thought experiment which will show what is at stake in their position. Just suppose by some unforeseen event the Earth start to cool and we realised all those trillions wasted on green stuff, what then would happen to the reputation of science.

Climategate I believe was a disgrace, they are not in the a job to justify an opinion or a position a faith if you like. They are there to crunch and analyse data even if it conflicts with their thesis.

Again I stipulate, I am not denying global warming.

hooradiation

Deleted User wrote: »

I think the emails of the top scientists pushing one side of the argument are a pretty good source.. Especially when they don't always point in the same direction as the information they publicly release.

What are you babbling about.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What about unrecorded history!

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

you mean like lake sediments, tree rings, ice cores , isotope ratios ?

We know snowball earth was about 716.5 Million years ago.

I was referring to individual extreme weather events which generally do not appear in geological records as they are in nature fleeting, rather than long lasting.

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

If only that was true, most of scientific public fund are all going to the climate change industry. It employs a lot of scientists and sell a lot of green shyte. Ireland has committed 21 billion into our stupid green power windmill wnak. The main funding for research is going into green and climate change. Now I could be cynical and say they have become the real vested interest. If you want to become a scientific pariah just deny climate change and watch your career plummet.

Here is just the US budget for global warming research it is the same proportion worldwide, it has become a scientific gravy

http://xkcd.com/980/

mining support in the USA is about $51 Bn
Oil and gas subsidies $41 Bn
Ethanol subsidies $5 Bn

Please explain why you think the cost of fuel won't go up ?

44leto

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://xkcd.com/980/

mining support in the USA is about $51 Bn
Oil and gas subsidies $41 Bn
Ethanol subsidies $5 Bn

Please explain why you think the cost of fuel won't go up ?

Are they government subsidies so the USA can achieve some form of energy independence. I was answering a post about the fossil fuel industry supporting climate change denial science. Maybe it does but it is no way near the amount that is going into the climate change lobby.

PS what is that website,,am I missing something.

Edit and off course a barrel of oil will rise and rise in price, but please explain how green tech will replace oil.

Capt'n Midnight

44leto wrote: »

please explain how green tech will replace oil.

Methanol can also be used in fuel cells.

44leto

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Methanol can also be used in fuel cells.

And you assume there are enough materials on earth to replace all the cars tractors ships with the elements that go into fuel cells and electric motors as in magnets.

Lithium salts are not that common and rare Earth's are called Rare Earth's for a reason. Incidentally China hold 97% of the world supply of Rare Earths. So unless they can come up with another type of battery and a another way to make efficient magnets, The switch to electric based cars are a non runner.

Right now we need a tech leap in that area and it better come fast.

super_furry

You know what I wish? I wish that the hotel that Nixon sent those goons into all those years ago had been called the Waterhole Hotel rather than the Watergate.

Climate-hole, Racism-hole, Spy-hole, Terry-hole, all would be much better than just gate.

pajunior

super_furry wrote: »

You know what I wish? I wish that the hotel that Nixon sent those goons into all those years ago had been called the Waterhole Hotel rather than the Watergate.

Climate-hole, Racism-hole, Spy-hole, Terry-hole, all would be much better than just gate.

Waterhole doesn't quite have the same ring to it though.

galwayrush

When years and years of ice build up at the Polars reaches a certain point, the sheer weight of the ice mountains bearing down start to produce massive heat, thus melting the ice caps, thus the cycle continues.
Anyways, bacterial farting causes more damage than industry regarding so called Global Warming.

RichieC

galwayrush wrote: »

Anyways, bacterial farting causes more damage than industry regarding so called Global Warming.

No it doesn't, the earth has natural Carbon sinks, the sea, the land trees ect. The carbon coughed out by human industry is not being dealt with by the earth at a fast enough rate thus it is getting into the atmosphere and trapping heat.

What we are seeing now is the once perennial ice sheets around the artic are starting to melt right through in summers. we are seeing temperature records being broken nearly year on yea now, that's highs and lows.

I'm not a scientist but I took the time out to read about climate change and came away convinced, most moppets I talk to simply take an ideologically driven "bad ass" right winger opinion with zero information that is short sighted and imo criminal.

The same people who said Lead paint was safe, Asbestos is grand and cigarettes don't cause cancer are the same sh*t merchants out shilling for big business now.

Do some fking reading and stop repeating the same shot down talking points ad nauseum..