Truth News Australia

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

Well I’m yet to watch it but am going to tonight smile

But about the second half of the show.. You were talking about empires and revolutions. What do you guys think about the reason why each revolution just gets replaced by more tyranny, being that maybe each empire is actually just the same bloodlines using different faces.. Different locations.. Crafting each revolution to give us the illusion we have change.. I would not put it past them or us..

Any thoughts?

By Shaun on 2014 12 23 - 01:55:34
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

i agree with the first two comments. Lets say the film is a propaganda film; how is it different to the loads of films the Americans and the British made to uplifting music during the war? Does that mean we shouldn’t believe any of them either? Sorry, but i think your argument is crap.
Watch all of it, read the articles, study the facts and then come back and tell us all how important the music is.
I have met some of you people before and i honestly thought you were better than that.

By Glenn on 2014 12 22 - 20:36:05
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

I agree with Mr Tiedemann’s comments.  It is evident that you not have viewed this film.  I did not hear any constructive discussion on this subject in your recent program.

By jewels on 2014 12 22 - 18:36:33
From the entry 'Who controls the world, and what can you do about it?'.

http://www activistpost com/2014/12/these-15-arguments-will-destroy.html

how many planes hit the pentagon josh? liar.

By you losers on 2014 12 21 - 09:35:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett is correct if he states that airway charts are no direct indication of actual traffic.

However it shows that there are designated routes over South Burnett. It’s not an area where air traffic is unusual.

For the actual traffic consult Flightradar 24 over the South Burnett region.

Regarding the semantics of “from/to Sydney and Brisbane” let me clearly state that I never had the route between Sydney and Brisbane in mind. This might have been more clear to people following the discussion with Cris.

The bottom line and the relevant point is that there is just no evidence for days with “only one jet” over South Burnett. Flight tracking shows clearly that there is constant traffic over the region. Show me a day with only five jets over South Burnett on Flightradar 24 - even limited to the daylight period - and I will be convinced.

The statement of Cris (“We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally”) can indeed only refer to the visibility with bare eyes on a non-trail day, not the actual traffic, as explained extensively and repeatedly.

Regarding the “3 or more abreast” situation that Cris referred to, I quote my reply from the first time this was brought up:

Next time you see three planes abreast, or circles, or grids - grab a camera and take a picture. Otherwise it’s hard to say what you saw. May have been normal traffic where the many routes are bound to intersect at some points, or circling in holding positions, or military exercises.

Without seeing pictures, it’s just speculation.

I can add now that I have observed several situations on Flightradar where three planes were close together (vertically separated of course), going in the same direction. Why should that be unusual?

 

By Josh on 2014 12 19 - 01:13:29
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

chris

By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????

you dont get answers from josh anonymous.. its beyond his capabilities, you will get a whole heap of incomprehensible bluff and bluster though..

i usually try to make it easy for the poor sap, just asking simple yes or no questions, or those requiring a one word answer..  but they seem to be the ones he struggles with the most? - he really is an enigma.. he should donate his body to science, and i dont think he should wait till he dies either..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:45:51
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities.

he must really struggle with simple day to day tasks.. honestly.. that is another example of when he accussed me of making threats, then denied he wrote that, then wanted me to show him precisely where he did, and when shown, simply ignores all reference to it..  pretends it didnt happen at all.. unbelievable really - if he is the best answer to prove that chemtrails dont exist, they really are struggling.. 

he thinks proving a point, obviously, is simply banging away at the keyboard and hitting submit, with no consideration to rhyme or reason.. relevence, consistency, logic or common sense.

he wont / cant even answer simple questions.. incapable of providing a yes or no answer to a simple question. he feels his inconsistencies, lies, qualifications, credibility, have no relevence to anything so long as he keeps the babble going on and on.. he is doing a good job.

I suspect Janonymous is a whack-job rather than a shill.

you might be right there, it would be almost impossible for a shill to pretend to be so stupid.. and in most instances, id feel a little bit of pity..  but i dont in this case, he needs medication or something, he is obviously in a lot of misery..

By Andrew Adams on 2014 12 18 - 12:42:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Pretty busy here.
Looked at the link late last night.
If there were planes on those routes I would have seen very few as nearly all of the routes don’t come close enough to me.
Maximus, you are not omniscient.
You are clueless.
By the way I I still don’t have an answer for when there are 3 or more abreast?????
What about the ones that intersect those paths….only a few of which go near me?????
What about the stop start ones?
And the ones that make curvy border around an approaching weather front?
Or the giant circle that I took photos of?
Just because the lap dog news can pump out NWO propaganda unopposed because they won’t print evidence to the contrary doesn’t mean you will get away with it.
Do you need hearing aids?
VERY FEW JETS UP HERE UNLESS THERE IS IMMANENT RAIN!!!

By Cris on 2014 12 18 - 12:30:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Janonymous, if you knew anything at all, you would know that the Skyvector aeronautical charts you give reference to are simply charts of airways and no indication of any traffic whatsoever.

Leonard Clampett,
“I have flown Sydney - Brisbane and Brisbane - Sydney many tines”
Huh? Did anybody talk about that route?
I said that planes from Sydney and to Sydney as well as planes from Brisbane and to Brisbane are flying over the region.
Earlier I have stated (referring to Queensland):
“All the traffic between Shanghai, Beijing in the North-West and Sydney in the Sout-East is going over it, as well as the Brisbane - Singapore route. Among the traffic are many cargo flights which shouldn’t come as a surprise. Then add all those continental connections.”
Here is a direct link to the enroute vector map centered over Brisbane. Drag it to South Burnett - as I said, fairly busy.
By Josh on 2014 12 17 - 22:34:06

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 12 18 - 12:07:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Janonymous seems not to be able to understand that which he writes. BTW Janonymous, you did not “say”, you “wrote” the following. Perhaps English is not your first language, but you seem to try hard with it to demonstrate your odd views. You WROTE the following;

“Looking at FR24, there are many, possibly 60-70 (varying, of course), because planes from/to Sydney and Brisbane do fly over the region. Run FR24 in time-warping mode to visualize the traffic during one day.”

.

This means aircraft from/to Sydney and Brisbane. There is no mention of any other geographical locations so it is demonstrable that you refer to those two cities. It means aircraft flying between the two cities. If you really knew anything about that which you claim, you would know that aircraft that fly over the Burnett are not those between Sydney and many other places. Look at the maps. look at the high and low level RNC’s. Wake up. If you meant aircraft arriving at, and departing from, Sydney and Brisbane for other locations you would have written so.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 12 18 - 11:58:26
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Categories