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

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:53
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Having read this I thought it was extremely informative. I appreciate you spending some time and energy to put this content together. I once again find myself spending a significant amount of time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

By Damaris on 2014 09 01 - 12:35:48
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Cris,

you say that “there is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are, except when rain is likely.”

You can spot jet planes easily if they create contrails, short or long. As I have stated before, contrail conditions usually improve when a weather front is approaching. That explains why you see more jets then.
(As a matter of fact, right now there is a large warm front approaching the area where I live - lots of trails that get more and more embedded into cirrus clouds; tomorrow will be rain all day.)

The big problem is to spot jet planes at cruise altitude when the air is dry up there, and no trails are formed.

It’s hardly possible with bare eyes - not because your or anyone’s eyes are bad, but because the planes are tiny and there is the unwelcome effect of “empty-field myopia”. This means that everyone has trouble focussing on a distant object if there is no reference in the vicinity, like in a uniformly coloured piece of sky. (Leonard Clampett probably knows it from flight school.)

To count any non-trailing planes you need to do a systematic and slow sweep over the visible sky with a pair of binoculars. (You may be surprised!)

Again, have a look at flightaware.com or flightradar24.com, go to your area and see the actual traffic going by your place at any time. Keep in mind that if there are no mountains or buildings blocking the view, you can see contrails in a range of 65 miles and more from your position.

Can you state where you are, county-wise at least? I would like to have a look myself.

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.

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:22:18
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

I did not talk about ill-meaning individuals when I wrote about the attack on science and reason. I was referring to the ancient caveman in everyone of us, who is always ready to invent a god or some other higher power in order to construct a simple explanation when reality becomes to complex to grasp.

Let me stress that I believe that no one is really safe there, and that it requires an act of will to escape the attraction of explaining world problems away by postulating some secret evil power. I can’t really blame people who fall for it (I myself was into UFOs as a teenager), but unfortunately it distracts from the real problems; consequently I am convinced that someone should give a voice to skepticism ...

That all aside, have you researched ice supersaturation and the creation of water during combustion of hydro-carbons?

By Josh on 2014 08 30 - 04:17:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Hi Josh
You have a problem. There is very, very minimal jet air traffic where we are,except when rain is likely.Beside that how would you explain 3 planes abreast spewing the rubbish out? Isn’t that a bit odd? Do Jets usually fly 3 abreast? Do they make circles, checker boards and other weird patterns? And for the record an ex Ansett 767 pilot who came here thinking I was exaggerating about the amount jet made chemtrails, only when rain was forecast, admitted the situation was exactly as I stated. He was a senior pilot, trained in meteorology. I’d say his views should be taken seriously. I believe there is approaching 150 patents for atmospheric modification chemicals alone. Am I to presume that HAARP’s coupling with the chemicals is a fairy story too?
Ignore at your peril. Disinform to your disgrace.
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 08 29 - 13:13:26
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josua Dietze. So you no longer have to hide from the public, or is it your real name? Wanting to know a name is not a fixation, it is courtesy to advise who you are unless, of course, you have something to hide from. A friend advised me you had come back to continue to spread misinformation, so, why have you not been able to understand a couple of simple things. The first is “conspiracy”, and the second is “theory”.
CONSPIRACY (Middle English-Anglo French) is defined, in the main, as “an unlawful alliance” and some synonyms include: 1. collusion, sedition. 2. Conspiracy, plot, intrigue, cabal all refer to surreptitious or covert schemes to accomplish some end, most often an evil one. A conspiracy usually involves a group entering into a secret agreement to achieve some illicit or harmful objective: a vicious conspiracy to control prices. A plot is a carefully planned secret scheme, usually by a small number of persons, to secure sinister ends: a plot to seize control of a company. An intrigue usually involves duplicity and deceit aimed at achieving either personal advantage or criminal or treasonous objectives: the petty intrigues of civil servants. Cabal refers either to a plan by a small group of highly-placed persons to overthrow or control a government, or to the group of persons themselves: a cabal of powerful lawmakers.
THEORY (late Latin and Greek) is defined as a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena, e.g. Einstein’s theory of relativity.
I am wondering just what seditious, evil, criminal, treasonous, surreptitious, illicit, harmful objectives you believe we, who understand that chemtrails are real, have entered into as a group to viciously “conspire” to cause harm to whomever you think would be harmed by telling the truth as opposed to spreading falsehoods.
In order to conspire, as you can see, a group must enter into some kind of agreement to cause harm. So, the question for you, as the claimant that says people “conspire” to cause harm by pointing out that chemtrails are real, is, “What is the harm that would be caused, and to whom, by those who understand that forces are at work to modify atmospheric conditions, by way of atmospheric spraying of unnatural ingredients to have power over all?”
Do you believe that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or hundreds of millions of people, across the globe are “conspiring’ with each other to do harm by telling of chemtrails?

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 08 29 - 10:48:14
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:57
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:55
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

We stumbled over here by a different web page and thought I should check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

By Sidney on 2014 08 28 - 01:23:52
From the entry 'What hit the Pentagon?'.

Categories