Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Son of Climategate

November 23, 2011, part 1 of 1.
Download mp3 » click here

24 November 2011 | Permalink | comments: 6
By Hereward Fenton

After two years, the climategate scandal has erupted once again, with a new tranche of embarrassing emails from the world's top climate researchers now spreading virally across the net. The release of these emails seems timed to overshadow the upcomng Durban conference in the same way the previous release preceded the COP 2009 conference.


Chris Smith speaks with Shadow Climate Change Minister Greg Hunt about the leaked emails casting doubt on the science of climate change.

The climate science establishment  has predictably hit back with a swift and savage rebuttal:

Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University and a scientist whose name appears in several of the emails, dismissed the latest email release as “truly pathetic”. He instead said the hackers 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.”

In tonight's show Josh Jackson joins us to mull over this news and other matters of public importance.

Please enjoy!

Related Links

 

Comments

climategate 2, as big a yawnfest as climategate 1!

By sleepy on 2011 11 26 - 17:10:57

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/groping-2gb-host-chris-smith-loses-job-family/story-e6frewt0-1225809729558

You’re using right wing media scum from 2GB to perpetuate a non –story!?

Your NOT a scientist, YOU don’t have any scientific training.
YOU can’t comprehend what the scientists are telling YOU and the rest of the world.

Because it goes above your head, it is BEYOND YOUR RANGE OF UNDERSTANDING/COMPREHENSION you label it as some sort of conspiracy to tax people for a one world government.

Get REAL!

I suggest you read the IPCC reports (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm) before commenting further on this topic; not quoting some drongo has-been shock jocks to prove your deluded point.

What can Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre do with a pack of morons but rebut the bullshit lies.

By Ali on 2011 11 30 - 12:47:42

So what are your qualifications Ali? On the table, now! And please refrain from kindergarten level name-calling in future, thanks.

By Hereward Fenton on 2011 12 02 - 15:54:51

The best evidence that we are really on to something is when people like Ali represent the opposing viewpoint. All Ali offers is ad hominems, appeals to authority and venomous character smears against his opponents.

For me that is proof that Ali and his embattled crew have lost the argument. Bravo!

By Hereward Fenton on 2011 12 02 - 16:02:46

I have studies physics and chemistry & math’s to university level.
I know the scientific method, it is a method developed over many years by very smart people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method  ).

Scientist of today are “Standing on the shoulders of giants”, as they say.


Everyone’s heard of Einstein’s “*theory* of relativity”, even though it explains the real world to us and has enabled man to develop the atomic bomb and put satellites into space, it does not explain everything. Until someone comes along with a better theory it’s the best explanation we have to represent the real world.

The string theory proponents have failed to demonstrate they can provide a binding universal explanation from the sub atomic level to the macro world of galaxies and the universe,& thus haven’t knocked of Einstein’s theory.

In Science observable measurements are taken, a hypothesis produced, peers scrutinize the data & hypothesis & conclusion. (http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml )

With global warming and other science, Scientist all over the world picks apart the evidence published by their peers in their field of research.

Maybe its because they all want some glorious write up in the scientific journals, or for the fun of it, they may want the recognition of being the one who pulled apart some important paper or for some other self serving reason etc .

When the scrutinizing is done and what’s left over is still credible and can be replicated (in modeling or otherwise) it is held to be correct until such time someone can prove it wrong with more evidence.

Remember cold fusion discovery @ room temperature?

“It was the most notorious scientific experiment in recent memory - in 1989, the two men who claimed to have discovered the energy of the future were condemned as imposters and exiled by their peers. Can it possibly make sense to reopen the cold fusion investigation? A surprising number of researchers already have.”

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.11/coldfusion.html

When scammers try to pull a fast one to fool the scientific community they will get found out and exposed to be the fraud charlatans they are.

But this is done by **PEER scientist** , not some wally “Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley” or 2GB right wing “pay for comment” shock jocks with an AGENDA, or sell-out paid-up scientist on the fossil fuel payroll.

By ali on 2011 12 02 - 18:03:53

The lying rodent john howard has thrown his support behind pilmers new - “book”

some very learned responses at this link.
http://www.aussmc.org/2011/12/rapid-reaction-ian-plimer-launches-new-book-on-climate-change-–-experts-respond/

it may come to pass that a tax on carbon, is in fact nothing more than a scheme for the rich to get richer, and a lousy way to cobat climate change, but to pretend that means that the climate isnt changing, is laughable in the face of all the evidence.

its as a ridiculous proposition as it is to say that all you need to bring a 47 storey steel framed skyscraper down at freefall ecceleration to collapse into its own footprint is a box of matches.

it might not be impossible that all the worlds experts on climate are in collusion to present a fraud to the world - youd have to ask why though, but i doubt, any amount of cash incentives, or other forms of persuasion, could convince mother nature to lend her hand on the scheme by way of record breaking extreme weather events in everything from droughts, floods, cyclones etc and everything in between.

By sunshine on 2011 12 13 - 11:41:06

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Andrew Adams,

you have argued that there would always be natural clouds present if conditions were right for persistent contrails.

In my reply I quoted an atmospheric scientist who spends his life with researching contrails. He says that persistent contrails can form in levels of ice supersaturation that are not yet high enough for natural cirrus formation.

Do you think he is wrong?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:54:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Wayne Hall,

what is your evidence for the aerosol spraying that you are referring to?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 18:39:28
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

There is no reason on earth why one should keep on talking about contrails vs chemtails just because those who launched this aerosol spraying decades ago thought that it would be nice to have the contrails cover story. The starting point for discussion is the claims by geoengineering advocates (such as Clive Hamilton in Australia) that solar radiation management would be a good idea and that aerosol spraying for geoengineering or other undisclosed purposes is not already a global reality. And the onus of proof is on them, i.e. those that are making this claim.

By Wayne Hall on 2014 11 01 - 16:42:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

josh dumdum,
you still seem incapable of comprehending the simple fact that i consider engaging seriously with you a complete waste of time..

your only qualification from the school of sophistry does not qualify you to pretend you are some sort of expert on anything, and again, nothing you say is of any interest to me. you have failed time and time again to prove people should not be concerned.

i dont need you to tell me anything, nor does anyone else. there are plenty of qualified experts who are not afraid to put their names to their claims who id trust way before someone who spends an inordinate amount of time on nondescript websites trying to “debunk” the truth…

that is the lie.

 

 

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 10:20:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

you say “if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present”.

And there often are other cirrus clouds around when contrails persist for long! In clear blue skies, contrails are quite often not persisting. Both does not always apply though; see quote further below which has the reason for that.

The process I described is how persistent contrails form; it’s not just a claim I make. Read NASA’s contrail pages for a starter. It has to say:

Persistent contrails are ice clouds, so they are mostly made of ice. They also are likely to contain aircraft exhaust products (including soot and dissolved gases like sulfur dioxide), but they are overwhelmingly made from moisture condensed out of the surrounding air.” (Emphasis is mine)

Or read Ulrich Schumann’s concise 2005 paper on contrails, which contains this sentence:

Contrails evaporate quickly if the ambient air is dry; they persist, evolve into more extended cirrus clouds and grow in particle size by deposition of ambient water vapour on the ice particles in the contrails if the ambient air is humid enough.” (Emphasis is mine)

In the conclusion of the paper, you’ll find a hint why it’s quite possible that there may be persistent contrails without surrounding clouds:

Many aspects of contrail formation are well understood. Contrails from for thermodynamic reasons when the ambient air is cold enough. Persistent contrails form in ice-supersaturated air masses. In such cases often contrail cirrus forms where no cirrus would form otherwise because ice supersaturation is often too low for natural cirrus particle nucleation.” (Emphasis is mine)

Now can you tell me where you think there is a lie?

By Josh on 2014 11 01 - 09:25:53
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.”

if that were the case.. there would be other clouds present, ones that have not come out the back of an aircraft. if the humidity is there, you wouldnt need an aircraft going past in order for clouds to appear in an otherwise perfectly clear blue sky.

appareently fenton likes truth here, yet not only does he tolerate your lies, he encourages it.

not the first sign of hypocristy we see from him though. still cant tear himself away from facebook i see )

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:34:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Burden of proof. Clever legal chess play.
Isn’t it the case that those that rule us do so in deference to our sovereignty.
Isn’t it the case that .many of us do not consent to the above mentioned rulership.
Isn’t it the case that if one were to ask one of the said rulers to write down and sign at their own individual unlimited commercial liability that geoengineering, including but not limited to “chemtrails”, for the purpose of weather manipulation is not being conducted that there would be a refusal.
Is it not the case that a refusal to the previous proposition would amount to tacit agreement that what is referred to is happening.
The burden of proof rests on him who affirms not on him who denies….but there are ways snaring the slippery.

By Cris on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:55
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

““i have been neither dictatorial, nor abusive” - yes, you have mate. Earlier you said “how about just taking a big gulp from the mug of STFU”. That is both dictatorial and abusive. We’ll now add “dishonest” to the list of your shortcomings. Have a nice day.”

i think you need to look up the definition of dictatorial fenton. banning people here simply because you can would more fit the definition than me suggesting someone take a drink from a mug.

as far as honesty goes, i really doubt you have a leg to stand on there, because if i were to believe you really want me to “have a nice day” instead of it being a smarmy glib sarcastic jibe, then id be as gormless as josh, who still cant seem to understand the fact that nothing he can say here, in his role as unqualified mendacious shill, is of any interest to me.

further on honesty, you say “i think we can all agree that a plane hit the pentagoin” - not verbatim, but its close - so perhaps you can show us what you base that falsehood on?

further on honesty you continue to pretend chemtrails are a non issue, disregarding the concerns of thousands more qualified than you.

further on henesty, you call this site truthnews…

have a shitty day <—- at least im honest

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 01 - 08:26:21
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

the point that rational people make is that the stuff coming from the airplane exhaust stays indeed the same, but what’s changing is the situation around the plane. At one day there is dry air, at annother there is a lot of humidity. (See my explanation how the latter can happen when a front is approaching.)

If a contrail persists and grows, the additional mass comes from the humidity that is already present in the air - just like when natural clouds form, seemingly out of nothing.

By the way, that is a well-known plausibility argument against chemtrails - no plane is able to carry the mass equivalent of even a small persistant trail (search “ice budget”).

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 23:46:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,

I don’t claim to be an expert. However, I have read a lot about both chemtrail claims and their dissection from a scientic point of view, from sources that are accessible to everyone.

If something specific that I wrote is wrong, I certainly welcome a correction. Usually, I’m giving references from actual experts, so it’s only fair that any rebuttal should include specific references too. Also, I’d welcome if we could stay polite.

The science of persistent contrails is well established. They were observed since the early days of aviation (see also the top article), and the conditions that favour them were researched in the middle of the 20th century (Schmidt and Appleman, see for instance the introduction of this paper).

The Appleman Chart is a rule of thumb for contrail prediction. It is not very intuitive, but there is a visualization available which allows to adjust the parameters and see how the contrail properties are changing (needs Java).

Any claim that a specific persistent contrail cannot be explained with this knowledge needs to be based on very good evidence. If the evidence is reviewed and still stands, science has to be corrected. That’s the whole idea about scientific research - but the burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

By Josh on 2014 10 31 - 22:38:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories