UK 'Climategate' inquiry largely clears scientists
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 0 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 5 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 6 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 2 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
29 Comments
Login to comment
0
manfromamerica
A joke. The investigation lasted all of ONE DAY. Global Warming is a scam.
0
Bebert61
Gee, these guys learned some tricks from America's "9/11 Truth Commission." Namely, truth is whatever the authorities say it is.
0
SushiSake3
It's amazing that there's still individuals out there who deny that climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
0
HeyLars
I am afraid that does explain the covering up of data Sushi. And the case for climate change is pretty good, but the case that it is primarly caused by human activity is not that good.
0
Molenir
Even more amazing is that there are actually people so silly and gullible as to believe it. Just when you start to think people might have a brain, they start ranting about human caused global warming, and you realize they're either gullible idiots, or simple nutcases. Either that or they're getting something from their advocacy. Still, its fortunate, that more and more people are waking up to realize that AGW is nothing more then a farce.
0
GJDailleult
There was an article by the gullible idiots and simple nutcases at The Economist, stating what is obvious only to the gullible and not geniuses like Molenir and M.F.A. Lack of proof of man-made global warming is not proof that it is not happening. That the climate may in fact be too complex to model anyways, and that the idea that man-mad global warming is NOT happening is itself an unprovable theory. And that climate change should be treated as a risk management issue.
"Action on climate is justified, not because the science is certain, but precisely because it is not". Gullible fools those guys!
0
HeyLars
Its kind of funny that you mention ranting Molenir, since you were the first to do it. Believing in climate change is neither silly nor gullible. One rotten scientist does not spoil them all because this is not a barrel of apples.
I am not familiar with the acronym AGW, but I assume the GW is global warming. That is an unfortunate misnomer that confused a lot of simple people. The more accurate term used now is climate change. Please, do try to keep up.
Fact is you have provided as little proof of your case against as I have seen made for. But your rantings and scatter gun claim of being gullible, silly, nuts or paid advocates hardly do you any favors. You might want to stop screeching from your high horse.
0
Molenir
Did I say anything about Climate Change? You said it in your post earlier. The Climate is changing. This is NOT news. Its always changing. The issue has to do with man caused climate change. Something you and GJ have both admitted is unprovable. Meaning, all those who are pushing this unprovable idea, preaching that man is definitely causing climate change are attempting to fool the people. It is a farce.
GJ, action is not justified on this issue. The idea that because man might possibly be causing, or driving climate change, is not a sufficient reason for destroying economies. How many people need to lose their jobs, how many trillions of dollars should be thrown at this completely unproven hypothesis? And if it cannot be proven, should we base our policies on unproven bad science? What other theories will be thrown out there in the future, that likewise can't be proven, and that also will cost trillions of dollars? I mean, potentially an asteroid could eventually strike the Earth, so shouldn't we act now, spend trillions of dollars to build a planetary defense system to fight this off? If we followed the logic of AGW proponents, we should act now!
0
HeyLars
Why so defensive? You said "it" which was refering to climate change and you said "ranting about human caused global warming" when the only one who ranted was you plus you used the outdated term global warming which is used by skeptics who don't keep up.
I never said man-made climate change was not provable. I said the case was not that good. There is a big difference.
I am with GJ. I don't mind reducing CO2 and pollutant levels. I don't mind spending money on those even if I am not sure. Consider WMD and what was done despite not being sure. That I did not support because the consequences for being wrong was human life. Acting on the idea of man-made global warming is not like that. We can find alternatives to what we do now. In fact, jobs will be created by find alternatives.
0
hworta269
umm yeah okay, lets roll back the industrial revolution and all live in huts just because some people think that man made global warming is going to destroy the world unless we all pay more taxes now!
Those guys in England hid data, then outright destroyed the raw data and then sent smug emails to eachother about fixing the numbers and charts to scare world leaders in to giving the global warming crowd billions and trillions of dollars to fix something that wasn't even broken in the first place.
Water vapor accounts for more then 90 percent of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere so are the global warming idiots going to outlaw water along with CO2?
0
Taka313
molenir,
We're not going to do the weather dance again, are we?
You know the one. The one where you claim this and that and then I state scientific fact and then you claim what you really meant was this and then I state scientific fact and then you leave defeated. That one.
Why don't you just ratchet down the hyperbole and I'll let you slide on this one, cuz I like you and I'm feeling generous.
Taka
0
manfromamerica
It's a scam.
0
LostinNagoya
Ok, manfromamerica, we heard you, twice. Please stop now.
The resul of this enquiry is a punch on the face of all the stubborn deniers.
0
manfromamerica
LOL!! The inquiry itself is a punch in the face to all manmade-climate-change supporters. A 1-day inquiry "exonerated" themselves. Funny stuff.
0
LostinNagoya
Don't laugh so nervously, Manfrom...You are not supposed to. After all, this offical UK panel said the Climate Change study is right. I mean, it was validated. Officially. Where is the deniers' paper, published, officially investigated and validated? Uh, err, none?
Stop saying it was a scam, unless you have solid proof of that.
0
Molenir
Me, Ranting? I guess its all in how you read it. Still, I find it amusing, seeing how many people are still posting the hysterics line. I often wonder when I'm reading their posts. Are they gullible fools, partisan hacks, or benefiting from the scam. Pretty much the only ones who still believe in it, or claim to, are those types of people.
Taka, I don't remember any dance like this. Though I do remember it being the opposite.
Yeah, pretty much just a joke. Should have just released it on April 1st. It would have been much more believable then.
0
Taka313
molenir,
Your memory is as good as your training in meteorology, I'm afraid.
Do I really need to teach you again how man is affecting the weather or can you just be a man and admit I've proven it to you on numerous occasions? I'm willing to dumb it down for you so there are no excuses as to why you cannot understand that man is affecting the weather. And it's all science, not some guy on fox with a lot of petroleum products in his hair, screeching at an excessive decibel.
You know I can do it. Need we? Really?
Taka
0
manfromamerica
LostinNagoya,
I hope I didn't upset you, but the cover-up has been exposed, loads of scientists who doubt the man-made hypothesis have come out, even the founder of the weather channel calls it the biggest hoax.
It's a billion dollar scam to 1) enrich gore and his envirocorps who sell carbon credits and so-called green tech, 2) redistribute wealth to 3rd world dictatorships, and 3) the next step in the socialist agenda to control citizens.
Or (maybe more likely?) maybe it's just innocently but hugely wrong.
Either way, it's a scam, and anyone who disagrees is being bullied or censored.
0
Molenir
Oh Taka, are you seriously trying to turn things around on me? You don't remember the long debate we had over then environment last time? You know, where I did circles around you. Left you runnin home cryin for mama. Well, if you insist, and want me to whip your lil behind again, bring it on. We can debate it again.
I'll start by conceding mankind does effect the planet, and indeed locally, the weather. Heat Island effect, and Acid rain are both examples of this. However when we're talking global warming, you need to start by realizing that mankind puts out only about 3 percent of the total CO2 released per year. Thats it. Animals and planetary systems are responsible for about 96% of all CO2 production. So, since CO2 is, according to the faux scientists, the primary motivator behind global warming... On its face, its simply nonsense. Add in the fact that their own models, you know the ones they use to hype the hockey stick (a completely unproven assertion) show that nothing we do, would change the environment. As in, if most of us died, and the rest went back to living in huts, the earth would still pull the hockey stick. Thats one of the many problems with the AGW hypothesis. There are a lot more, but it really comes down to the fact that its just unproven. And yet with that unproven, poor science, we are supposed to redo our entire economy, spending trillions of dollars, taxing ourselves into oblivion.
Sorry Taka, I know you want it to be true. You want mankind to be destroying the world. And to some extent you're right. We can have an enormous impact on our environment. But despite this, we have a lot less control over it then you would like.
0
manfromamerica
Molenir -
That's a very fair and reasonable comment.
0
nandakandamanda
Sounds like a cheeky whitewash at first reading.
Perhaps these other two 'inquiries' will not be pressured politically, and will be able to look at everything impassively.
0
Gombei424Canada
Well, my friends, I read today that about HALF of the "professional" weather people on American TV stations and in the corporate controlled media say that they believe the global warming is not real,, and it really makes me sad.And Of course the New York Times is behind the propagandization of this too. (go here www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?hp).My feeling is the only hope for America and the world is for an executive order to replace ALL meteorologists with CLIMATOLOGISTS, who know that the world is getting hotter and hotter and that polar bears are the canaries in the coal mines.
0
Taka313
molenir:
> Even more amazing is that there are actually people so silly and gullible as to believe it. Just when you start to think people might have a brain, they start ranting about human caused global warming,
Then I said I was going to make you eat your words.
Then you said, "no, I big, you small."
Then you conceded your first point.
Game. Set. Match.
Enjoy your parting gifts.
Taka
0
limboinjapan
Molenir; It seems we heard the same arguments you are making from US politicians and scientist in the late 70's and early 80's concerning the ozone layer and CFC and halo-carbon. It seems that at the time the Reagan administration and the CFC HC industries refused to accept even their own scientific proof, luckily sounder minds prevailed and now even such places as NASA agree that banning and reducing most of these chemicals was the right idea.
It always seems to be the right wingers and industry that refuse to accept anything that may impact their bottom line even if it kills.
I am far from a left wing go green at all cost person but even I can see how the climate has gone haywire in the last few decades.
0
Molenir
No, what I refuse to accept, is bad science passed off as gospel truth. If there was a real, scientific basis for what their claiming, I would be pushing this just as hard, or harder then they are. Really. But until there is real evidence that the AGW people are right. Until then, its nothing but a hypothesis, and one that is being used to drive a political agenda. This is a huge disservice to real scientists, who deal with real problems and real issues. Think of the boy who cried wolf. We've been hearing nothing but wolf for a long time, without any wolf being nearby. Thats the problem.
Taka, its not about whether or not mankind effects the planet. Thats a given. Its whether we are causing a massive destabalizing shift in the planet, IE the hockey stick. The AGW hypothesis. Thats what this is all about. People who push for climate change legislation do so because of this unproven hypothesis. They did it without any real proof about cause and effect at all. They do it with the default assumption, that mankind pollutes, thus mankind must be responsible. 600 years ago, when the plagues went through Europe, when crops failed etc, people blamed the gods, who were punishing them for their sins. That had about as much evidence behind it as this does. Bad things happen, people bad, people cause bad things. Its nonsense. Theres simply no proof of cause and effect. And until there is, anyone who tries to claim we should act now, is either a gullible idiot, a partisan hack, or benefiting from the change.
0
LostinNagoya
Well, these deniers of climate change are not important anymore. They are a noisy minority claiming wrong something that's proven right, twice.
0
limboinjapan
Molenir;"its not about whether or not mankind effects the planet. Thats a given. Its whether we are causing a massive destabalizing shift in the planet"
I point you again to the Ozone layer of proof that yes we can have a massive destabilizing effect on the planet and again at the time of the ban on CFC's and HC people like you were saying it was only an hypothesis all the way into the mid 90's when it became apparent that the ban was working.
0
Molenir
Ooh, not a good choice. So not a good choice. Go and do a bit more research on the subject, and you'll see why.
Back to top