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

Geoffrey, I’m inclined to agree with what you say, except that I wasn’t saying ‘anything goes’. I was only pointing out what free speech is, and that it isn’t what most people who like to think of themselves as liberal (or whatever) want it to be. They like to think they are open-minded and progressive, yet they support the assertion of authority over others.

If anyone can dictate what I cannot speak about, that sets a precedent. It means that no-one has freedom of speech at all. I don’t want to say nasty things about gays, for example, but if I support the idea of some body being able to stop others doing that, it would be hypocritical to then oppose that same body imposing other similarly arbitrary limitations on me.

Thus I am opposed to any limitations on speech (that is free speech!). It doesn’t mean I approve of any particular thing someone might say, but I do uphold their right to say it.

By zek on 2015 01 31 - 03:30:57
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech of course is free speech, as ‘Zek’ opines.  He is saying that ‘anything goes’.

On the other hand, some ‘anti-discrimination laws’ particularly in NSW Australia, make it unlawful to make any public statement that is deemed to offend persons who are, or who are reasonably believed to be, homosexual.  This anti-free speech law was bought into existence by Ms Clover Moore and it was called the Anti-Discriminaiton (Homosexual Vilification) Amendment Act 1993. Read more about the nightmare this law can create, here: http://bernardgaynor.com.au/into-battle-backup-required/#comment-384568

This show by Hereward Fenton I found very mind-stretching and interesting.  It was as if he was taking us on an inquiry together in order to discover a deeper truth.  It discussed many aspects of free speech in the current climate of fear and loathing. There are several dictionary definintions of ‘paradox’.  Here’s one definition that I think Mr Fenton had in mind:- ‘a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth’.

We can also say free speech is not free speech, in that most of us (except trolls) self-censor.  Our empathy, if we have any, stops our speech from being free.  This raises the question, what do we do about those without empathy, who are psychopaths or trolls, and actually get pleasure from using speech to attack and hurt people. In order to avoid laws that try to control what people can and cannot publicly say, one solution is to change our attitude, and cultivate tolerance and resiliance. This is based on the insight that mothers used to tell their kids who were bullied at school.

Sticks and stones
will break your bones
but words will never hurt you.

This little ditty reresents the opposite of what the vilification laws are about.

By Geoffrey McKee on 2015 01 31 - 00:52:48
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

I think the search for answers is pretty obvious now Fenton, it seems most avenues end up in the same place so for you and your followers, I think you are doing a great job, but its time to expose the elephant in the living room, once 9-11, is sorted and the world wars, its pretty much a Rothschild & Israhelli terrorist state purpetrating (ALL) the worlds angst! Imagine no refugees because no wars, MM its like that cure the scource, Breddon O,connell (SPOT ON) mate. Lets support people like this who see the Truth. Here,s to a better world smile Bring it on !

By Lachlan on 2015 01 29 - 20:47:17
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Sorry guys, “homophobes” in my last post should have read islamophobes…sometimes my finger get a little ahead of my thinking!

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 29 - 16:56:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

josh anonymous thinks his banal obfuscations can dispel any and all concerns regarding atmospheric spraying.
you may believe your bullshit bluff and bluster - but it does nothing to prove your case of no such thing as chemtrails, when that picture is but one of hundreds you will see if you enter chemtrail satellite into a search engine..

you can explain all them away with your unqualified babble - fact is.. if trails require specific rare conditions in oreder to persist, even for a short while.. ie; a few minutes, that doesnt go anywhere near explaining what is shown covering an entire country..  your full of it..  unless you can post evidence of your claim, that there is no such thing as chemtrails, i dont care for anything you have to say, you have proven repeatedly your disposition towards mendacity..

so again.. to put it bluntly.. put up or STFU.

By theehwh on 2015 01 29 - 14:53:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

aewt/Andrew Adams/Skywatcher,

the image you posted was taken from this original NASA publication.

Note that it’s an enhanced infrared image, but nevertheless it was a day with many trails in that region (January 29, 2004).

Here is the whole satellite photo (thumbnail) in real color, which provides some perspective about the proportions. Note the cloud band over Florida with the embedded contrails:

The original high-res image (17 MB) is also still available here.


Again, “rare” is a relative term; the actual numbers and the context are more telling.
As the study of R. Sausen and others says (I have referenced it before):

The annual global mean value is 0.09%

(From “A Diagnostic Study of the Global Distribution of Contrails Part I: Present Day Climate”)

Now, the surface area of the Earth is 510 million square kilometers. That means roughly 460 000 square kilometers of pure contrail area - at every moment, excluding all the gaps, and obviously concentrated in areas where there is air traffic.

The central point is that this is the average, so of course there can be local and temporal maxima. Nothing there to make scientists fret about.

By Josh on 2015 01 29 - 01:41:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

it appears from this picture

that the specific, RARE, ( i say rare because that is what was said in an article posted by josh anonymous himself ) atmospheric conditions for contrails to persist… actually must in reality, occur all over the world, all the bloody time!

josh and fenton are liars. simple as that.

By aewt on 2015 01 28 - 13:12:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

At least Christendom has modified its act…even the Pope calls for peace and reconciliation, admited the Churches complicity in past atrocities, apologized to the Jews and so on…

re free speech: I suppose Hereward needs to be very careful about what he says, and would be fully aware that his every word is being monitored by others. I think he does a great job and has on more than one occasion come very close to the edge. He’s also entitled to his opinion, and although I don’t agree with it at times, in my opinion, it doesn’t detract from the work he is doing.

By Eugene Donnini on 2015 01 28 - 10:51:17
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Free speech is free speech. If you believe in any restrictions on it, then you don’t believe in FREE speech. People often say, “I’m all for free speech but…” - there are no buts, it’s either free or it isn’t. Be honest, if you don’t believe in free speech, admit it. I’m not advocating either side of the argument here, just pointing out a fact.

By Zek on 2015 01 28 - 04:26:08
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Rattus, do you know about the military conquests of Christian nations, from the crusades through to the conquest of Mexico? Do you know about how the ‘Christian’ slave traders operated in Africa? Do you know what the ‘Christian’ French did in Indochina, or the ‘Christian’ English did in India, or the ‘Christian’ Dutch did in Indonesia?

I think maybe your education in these matters is a bit one-sided, in that you have read and absorbed only one polemical perspective and missed the forest for the trees.

If you’re looking for atrocities, look no further than Christendom.

As for the Charlie Hebdo cover, surely you understand that the headline is the main message conveyed? The headline says “The Koran is Shit” - a direct insult to Muslims. Imagine if a magazine had the headline “The Torah is Shit” - how long do you think such a publication would remain in circulation?

By Hereward Fenton on 2015 01 27 - 22:40:05
From the entry 'The free speech paradox'.

Categories