It's a no "Brainer". I don't believe what an admitted "THEIF" puts up on the internet.

The victims of the theft IMO don't have to defend themselves.

There are agendas on both sides. The fact, however, is that one side is right in spite of their agenda. The parallel global warming on Mars and other planets suggests that we may be, as usual, claiming too much credit for "global warming." The fact that the tree huggers have switched the tag to "climate change" speaks louder than any stolen e-mails.

Wonder what the Vikings would have believed at the beginning of the little ice age, had they had the same resources and twisted egos that we do? "We TOLD you not to sack Lindisfarne! Now look what's happening to the climate!"

then it must be true. For you have been told.

No, just a plateau phase. Something that in no way is strange or rare in natural metacycles and general trends. Like one rainy day in July does not end the summer.

Well, I already do. But you maybe live in a covered box in a hospital, I do not know.

Changes that do not take place from one day to the other, ar hard to see, and often escape people'a awareness. Socalled landscape forgetfulness (translated from the German) is such an example. It means that people living in the mountains, for example, do not note the glacier becoming a little bit smaller in size every year. But when seeing a photo from 50 years ago, and compare it to the present, they suddenly realise and maybe remember from their childhood that what today is green and brown even in mid-winter, 50 years ago was white all year long.


And established business still invests even more money per year in lobbying and campaigning to ridicule climate science, to deny global warming and to replace scientific research and existing data with manipulated data, data quoted out of context, fictional pseudo-data, faked consent of scientists who had been tricked by manipulative (blatantly lying) "petition" texts, etc. It all is about raising doubts that have no real point.

I do not publish my emails in a public blog as well. Do I "hide" them therefore?
And next, show those emails to be of any meaningful content regarding your accusations. I just explained somewehre above just one example in what way the sceptics' sensational conclusions about them could be misleading.

Ah, I knew that he would be mentioned sooner or later. Now that you just have relieved yourself from the pressure to mention him, can we move on, yes?!

Ooops - it's the end.


In the end, you will see the same world going down the drain that I see going down the drain. and when it is beyind a certain point it will mean nothing anymore that people like me saw it coming, while people like you still tried to deny it even while it already took place.

Actually we have a good idea what they thought. They named it "Greenland". Nobody would make this mistake now,.... but maybe in 50 years?

I did not deny anything. I need more proof. You have taken what you have read and digested it as verse.


You were told the world is heating up. So it must be true!?! :hmmm:

There is no denying man does create havoc in the natural course of order concerning the mud ball we call Earth. To what extent I do not think can be measurable. The Earth does go through her cycles. The Earths riches are not infinite. It is very finite and taking a look at the vast fruitless deserts on the raped continent of Africa would paint a very good picture of what will become of this world. Long before the Al Gore hailstorm of doom in the next decade. THis planet will become as barren as the moon. The world can warm all it likes....the resources will run out long before warming will do a thing mankind. Perhaps before that occurs one of the quacks that runs a country will push the big button because he is having a bad day. Good luck to us...global warming or not.

Are you serious? What makes you think the world is going down the drain?

Oh, right, these guys:
Unless you are a physicist like goldorak, how do you know how accurate these climate scientists are? :hmmm: All we know is what we read on the internet and hear on TV.

I can highly recommend the book

The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjørn Lomborg

He spends a lot of his book just looking at where the data comes from, how it was recorded, and how accurately it has been measured.

This is an example of how a scientist approaches the problem. He investigates and evaluates the data and not just accepts it. A very interesting read. :up:

Neal, I am adding together observations from many different fields, as far as I have had inout on them from media, reading books and essays on the matter, and getting some personal feedback as well. when I said the planet is going down the drain, then I mean the planetary conditions are detoriating that way that nations become ungovernable, conflict over ressources break out, natural desasters due to environmental changes, the self-dynamic of global processes already running and gotten started by man'S industrial impat and high number of population. In short I add scientific information and economic projection, culture-psychologic assessement and historic precedences, power-politics and ecologic facts together, and come to a planet that is exploited beyond what nature can repair, is intoxicated at gropwing levels, that is in a solid trend towards massive climatic change that will have - and already has - tremendous effects on weather, ocean, erosion, land and ocean environments as well as the lifeforms and ecosystems on this planet, and I see that more and more conflict between human tribes break out over shortening resources, with mankind being insane enoguh to still not think about enforcing strict birth control and limited population sizes in a long term project to achieve that. But reality will adress that - and we will not like it. It already is a horror picture show, we already have seen it becoming more brutal in the past 15-20 years, and it will become much, much, much worse int he future, due to local wars over questions of survival, and natural disasters.

I could sit down and look through my library and refer to details on this author and that scientific book,. but what I instead do, like all humans, is forming a general summary, a general conclusion of all the input, a sum of all my info and thought. And this sum of it all paints a grim picture for the future.

And many scientists have written about these themes, having come to similiar conclusions in their fields. And sometimes I happened to have read this or that book by them. I do not claim to be a speiclaist and insider, I am a generalist, and a man with wide interests in the fields of popular sciences. So why should I stay away from trying to form an opinion on these matters? To leave assessements and decisions to the established elites only who have contributed their share of respinsibility for the mess we are facing...?

I can understand, from a psychological point of view, that many people having families and children, tend to reject too grim scenarios for the future. Man needs hope to bear life, a future considered worth to live for. But I am not like that, I cannot help it. There are many, many precedence of societies that have decided intentionally, rationally to act and bezhave in ways that guaranteed their fall and extinction. We are not the first. We just repeat old patterns. We are just te first society falling that is truly global in size, where as all historic exmaple before have been local "only".

I again, for the x-th time, recommend the works of Jared Diamond: maybe I should have a thread with a summary of his work. I know no other scientist who has referred so compellingly to the importance of environmental factors in the fall of past societies, like he does. That does not mean environment is the only factor in the fall of socieities and civilisations, but it's importance until now has been dramatically underestimated. the patterns history teaches us in many examples - have been followed once again to a worrying degree in the present. Any many cultures fell for them, their people dying.

People are too obsessed with having a party and thinking since it is their life now, it must be good times. It's a variation of the old human hobby of assuming "all world revolves around me". Do they think they have a special deal with fate, or with the planet? If you hold a gun at your head and pull the trigger, you're dead - there is no cheat, no deal possible, no bribery to trick life.

We already see it happening right now, Neal. Just open your eyes, don't get dulled by creeping normality that hides the changes from your mind due to the slow pace at which they take pace. It's not about sometime in the future. It's now.

Unfortunately Sky's evaluation pretty much matches my own conclusions on the subjects involved. I have also thought extensively about this stuff and done plenty of my own research into it, and made my own observations.

I am also deeply concerned about the future, so much so that I am very reluctant to have kids, as I would not want them to experience what I fear is coming. I also suspect things will go really wrong during my own lifetime.

Even Monbiot says the science now needs “reanalyising”


Andrew Bolt@HeraldSun November 24, 2009 wrote:

Even George Monbiot, one of the fiercest media propagandists of the warming faith, admits he should have been more sceptical and says the science now needs to be rechecked:


If even Monbiot, an extremist, can say that much, why cannot the Liberals say far more? And will now the legion of warmist journalists in our own media dare say as Monbiot has so belatedly:


Scepticism is the essential disposition of our craft, yet too many journalists have abandoned it. Remember: the opposite of sceptical is gullible.

Excellent German comment:

http://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Komme...en-866331.html

It's amazing that we live in a time where people live longer than dreamed of before and we talk about health and nutrition disasters. We are living longer because of our superior nutrition!

It's amazing that we talk about man-caused climate change in the face of past measured climate changes much quicker and much more severe where man could not have contributed!

It is amazing that we speak of societal degeneration into conflicts over resources, ungovernable masses, violent chaos, when we live in the most peaceful time in history. When's the last time some tinhorn French dictator attacked every country in sight, killing millions on the European continent and becoming some sort of perverted hero for doing so?

As David Gelernter said eloquently and with tremendous factual support in his book 1939: the Lost World of the Fair. in 1939, in spite of peering down the gullet of a certain war that would cost a hundred million lives, in spite of the fact that a Chicago worker with a good job would likely not make enough money to eat every day, in spite of the fact that life expectancy was 20 years less than today, these people living in hell were forward-thinking, optimistic, creative and resourceful. Today we have accomplished almost the totality of their vision for the future, and we are thoroughly disheartened, whipped puppy dogs, afraid to bring children into the paradise in which we live. Makes me ashamed to be human. Certainly they would rightly be ashamed of us. Quitters suck!

Neon, do you carry a sign that shows, "The End Is Near" painted on it? I liken your comment on not having kids to Skybirds comment to me about being overly protective of my kids in a long lost thread months ago. I was point blank told I was way over protective of my girls. You're not wanting kids for the fear of something happening surpasses the borderline lunatic as I was portrayed by not only Skybird but serval others in the thread. Perhaps you should stop and think that it might be one of your children that becomes the person who develops the answers to all the questions concerning global warming! Think about past history and what if prominent figures of our time had parents that did not want a child because of what MIGHT happen. Sure, perhaps only one in a billion really make a difference. Could be your child as the one! You never know. I do not think I would deprive myself of child and all the wonderful things that child rearing entails over a possibility that something might happen.

Exactly! I am somewhat baffled that bright people are so mired in pessimism about the future when the present is so fantastic, and full of potential.

And Sky, regardless of your library and sources of media, etc., it's still as I said, you are gathering some of your ideas and opinions from external sources, who may or may not be accurate. Yes, maybe the polar ice cap is melting, but who says that signals Step 1 in the end of the world? Every autumn the leaves die and fall off the trees, doesn't mean that's it, it's all over for nature. My eyes are open, that could be why I am more skeptical about man-made global warming. I have not signed on to the Al Gore express. I admit that I am not in a knowledgeable position to express an opinion one way or the other. And reading articles for and against won't really make me more knowledgable, just more opinionated.

I'm poutting things togethe rin that way that to me it makes the most sense, takes single details best into account, and matches in the easiest way. This is common procedure in science. If you have several theories to explaind a set of observations and they have the same explaantory value, pick the one which is the less complicated.

Also, I take into account psychological habits of people, that for example is they resist chnage, and want to stay with the old and familiar, because that is known to them, and what is known is associated with security and safety. I also consider who profits most from making society not changing the old ways, and that is the establishment, the profiteers of the old familiar ways and the old fashioned economy game. Those who benefit the most from the status quo have the most to lose.

I already have observed climate changed in my very own life span. I must not wait to see it happening. Summer is not what it was 30 years ago, and winter the same. It is countable fact that the number of regions having to deal with numerous symptoms telling a change to the worse have seen steep increases in the past 20-30 years. weather phenomenons have undergone drastic changes as well. We know for sure that the ocean is changing too, is becoming warmer and of changing ph-indices. We already see a steep rise in natural desasters like landslides and floodings, we see the shifting of climate zones and species following the changing climate barriers, and we see unnormal ground water levels and erosion, loss of agricultural soil and annormal plancton and alga levels in the oceans which have undergone dramatic changes in the past 30 years or so.

But what you are telling us is that these phenomenons are questionable, their mere existence must be researched, and if they exist they mean nothing. sorry, but that is just not good enough.

We have more than enough data to draw parallels to past societies, the way they pumped up population levels, boosted productivity, consumed more ressources than their environment could maintain and replace, and finally collapsing. when there was room to pout aside reserves for future times of crisis, this usually was not done, but the surplus wa sused to grow population level even more, ifngoring that these additonal people have to be fed as well. We also could see parallels between the present and the sociological and political decision-makings of the past. the most stunning thing one could learn if investing time into these matters is: in the past, it were rational, reasonable decisions leading societies into their fall. It's not just some safety failing, one person giving a wrong command. It's something like a psychological double-blind-trap. Often, interests of poltical prestige, religious motives, and power in general went hand in hand in cementing the old ways and habits even when they had become suicidal already. Cultures have a tendency towards not wanting to chnage, to protect their feeling of identity. In this context here, this inner tendency works for our worst.

Just consider this: in classic economy and state theory, growth is assumed to be potentially unlimited, and the needed precondtion to foster society, and produce more common wealth (how I love this word shell). But this growth is what has led us to excessively overconsummate ressources, living beyond our means, destroying our envrionment, and boosting population more and more. We thought and still think that the future generation would fix things, so we party on. Those who habe the most profit at rsik, keep telling us that the debts we make will be dealt with "in the future", when "the ecojoym has become better", etc.etc. etc. I heared this already when being at elementary school. And today, more than thirty years later, they still say the same. Where we are aware of a resources being limited, we think: "okay, it should be saved, but if I do not take it, then somebody else will, so better I take it myself before the others do." Social psychology knows this as the "prisoiner's dilemma", politics knows it as the "dilemma of communal property", it all is variations of these two well-described problems (I even had to talk about it in one of my verbal exams, btw. :) ). We still argue for unlimited growth in the economy - although the insane Western production levels of material wealth and the creation of Western living standards in no way can be maintained on a global scale, for a population of over 7 billion. This is insanity, and it is potentially suicidal. But still we get preached that what we need is economical growth. As a matter of fact our communbal systems are designed to depend on the financial income this produces, yes. That does not mean their must be growth - it means that the design of our societies is flawed in a very fundamental, most vital basis: it's a flaw that makes sure socieities of our dewsign cannot survive in the long run, and their wealth only is a temporary affair. Those taking profit from this only are intersted in the situation being stable for the duration of their lives. And after them: the flood, who cares. And yes, it is reasonable weighing of options in decision-making, and reasonable thought causing this misery. You see the great danger? Being so rational and reasonable is what is spelling our doom and is ruining the planet. And how could one argue against being reasonable and rational? I tend to praise myself for trying to be rational and reasonable, don't I?

The point is - reasonability and rationality need altruism in the meaning of the old christian concept of "agape" to complement them . Else it is maximum egoism in action. And egoism is what eats us up, one by one, the weak ones first, the strong ones last. That the consequences of our actions unfold slowly and creepingly only, and thus are hard to recognise (like you also do not see the grass growing, but it does - just very slowly), doesn't make it easier.

Instead of trying to establish delays and more delays and make hesitation the rule of the game, we need to understand that the time to understand we are in trouble, is over. The data to understand that - we already do have, and since long. What we need is research not on this old joke, but on the question if and how we could adapt to the challenge - a challenge that we have set up ourselves: rationally and very reasonably, psychologically maybe inevitably, but when taking the problem for itself: unneeded. If we fail, the world will not be the same anymore, and will move on without a global human civilisation. If we succeed (I am pessimistic), the world also will be a very different one afterwards.

Message of that is: the world we know from the present, will no longer be what it was. Man will understand that, or will not - it does not matter. Whether he understands, is not important for the planet, but only for man himself. The situation is not revolving around us - the planet just moves on with it's history, with or without us playing a future role in it.