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



climategate 2, as big a yawnfest as climategate 1!

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

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.


I suggest you read the IPCC reports ( 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 (  ).

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. ( )

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.”

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.–-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

Thank you, I’ve just been looking for info approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I have discovered so far. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the source?

By Lily on 2014 07 31 - 06:50:12
From the entry 'The Schapelle Corby files'.

Thank you, I’ve just been looking for info approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I have discovered so far. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the source?

By Lily on 2014 07 31 - 06:50:10
From the entry 'The Schapelle Corby files'.

Thank you, I’ve just been looking for info approximately this topic for a while and yours is the best I have discovered so far. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the source?

By Lily on 2014 07 31 - 06:50:08
From the entry 'The Schapelle Corby files'.

Leonard Clampett,

just ‘ad hominem’ attacks, no discussion of my arguments?

Did you read up about RHI and RHW? About the products of combustion of hydrocarbons?

You can find a lot of information about these things on the Internet. In fact, that’s how I learned a lot: looking for data and facts when researching conspiracy claims.

This also as an additional reply to Cris:

You don’t need personal input from experts to debunk the central (ever-repeating) claims of conspiracy theorists. There are several thorough and earnest communities that collect arguments - with references! - to counter these claims.

Chemtrail proponents are often passionate and eager to spread their view. Why should debunkers be different?
My personal motivation is that I am worried about the present state of the Enlighentment - scientific and critical thinking seems to be under attack from various belief systems.

Oh, and to Leonard Clampett: if you are so fixated on identities, will it change your position if I give you my full name? Let’s see - it’s “Josua Dietze”, and if you google it with quotes, you will find only references to me.

Now, what does that change?

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 19:30:49
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.


I would never claim that we have nothing to worry about, even if there is no evidence for chemtrails. I find it terrifying how fast we humans are changing the surface and the atmosphere of our planet, just by the sum of our activities. I am not optimistic about the view that nature will balance all this somehow sometime.

Back to the claims of metal spraying:

So far, all reports cited for these claims refer to testing on the ground. I include rain water, because rain drops collect dust from the lower altitude levels. Also, wind will carry dust into open collection containers that are left outside for a while.

The test method used for all the tests - plasma chromatography - can not make a difference between metals bound in compounds (like Aluminum as a component of clay) and free/metallic elements, which would indeed be toxic in higher levels. So if your test sample contains dust in any form, your test results will show metals - even if you had harmless mineral grains before. For the test, they are ‘cracked’ to their components by immense heat.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is getting lost in all the claims of toxic spraying.
So what we have is mainly misinterpretation, which is repeated over and over again.

The same is true for blood tests where the term “reporting limit” in the lab sheets is commonly misread as “highest allowed level” which must be reported to authorities - whereas in reality it is the smallest level that can reasonably be reported at all. So it’s in fact the technical detection minimum.

The blood tests I have seen so far - those that were actually released by concerned people - are showing normal levels.

Regarding metallic Aluminum in the soil:

I’m sure that as a farmer you know how acidification can change the chemical composition of soil. There are still countries that are blowing sulfur into the atmosphere which causes acid rain, which in turn raises the level of Aluminum. Also, there are areas where this level was always higher than elsewhere. Monsanto targetting these potential markets is just plain capitalism (not that I like them).

BTW, it took me a while for my first reply because the automatic notification from the TRNA site did somehow not work. I was only notified when Bob McDonld posted.

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 18:58:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment
account it. Look complex to far brought agreeable from you!
By the way, how can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:41
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment account it.
Look complex to far brought agreeable from you! By the way, how
can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:35
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Interesting response from JOSH ANONYMOUS, the glider pilot of no experience of that of which claims vast knowledge, most probably after he consulted numerous text books, plus his handlers as to how to respond. It did take some time to get back so he must have trawled through a lot of books to try to find information that could suit his claims. No need for that JOSH as common sense and knowledge you would have should suffice. You remind me of GEOFF SEENEY, now deputy premier of Queensland, who, when told about chemtrails, responded with the most inane claims that he knew how aircraft worked as he had seen them taking off from Rockhampton airport and applying his school-boy science had solved the problem. Two lessons learned from my youth, “never argue with idiots as they have had far more experience at it than you”, and “when you throw a pebble into a chook yard you will always know which one you hit”.
JOSH, your claims confirm to me that you are either exceptionally egotistic, with a constant need to support your self esteem, or are a simple minded stooge, one of the useful tools of the elite, i.e. useful idiots, or have some personal agenda probably tied to your insecurity. I am most certainly glad that you never did any maintenance work on any aircraft I flew. You won’t hear from me again, so you can live your dreams in conjunction with HEREWARD FENTON (if that is his real name) spreading your imaginings through the electrons on the Internet. Try not to fool people, because I can assure you you cannot fool all the people all the time. (Old proverb, old son) and think about why it is you seem so persistent in wanting to support and promote the elite with their agendas.
LEONARD CLAMPETT not an anonymous troll.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 07 26 - 12:01:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You certainly appear astute Josh. What I can’t figure is the methodology behind your thinking. If you are correct and no Barium, Aluminium, Strontium, vaccination components and a plethora of other nasties are never released in the air above us by the Chemtrail airforce then we have nothing to worry about and life will go as it always has: the self regulating biosphere will simply bring the small man made changes back into balance.
If I am right about the junk being spewed out, then the biosphere will most likely collapse, only to be remediated after we and most higher life forms are composted due to our inaction against the Elite that rule We the Cattle by deception and thuggery.
Let us look at just 2 components: Barium and Aluminium. Barium is an endocrine disruptor, shuts down the sodium/potassium pump that is vital to the survival of each of your cells, is destructive to the soil food web, etc, Aluminium has at least as many problems and strangely enough Monsatan has has developed a gene to deal with aluminium toxicity in the soil: . How did they know there was going to be too much Aluminium in the soil if they did not know we are being sprayed with it?
You take a while to answer Josh. Is that because you have to go to your minders to glean information about what to write.  Are you being paid? Why don’t you tell us who you are? Are you an NWO employee?
Now are you going to get a PHD microbiologist, a PHD naturopath, an soil chemist, a soil physicist, etc. that have sold their souls, to help you weave misinformation? Most either listen, learn and intelligently discuss or protect their well paid posteriors with silence.
By the way a commercial jet pilot that thought I was exaggerating about the amount of CTs here was surprised to see how much activity there was when rain likely here.
For the record, stuff all when there is no forecast rain and when rain is likely there are often over 50(over the period of a day) in the visible sky in all directions and paterns, even circles and short heaps of short runs.
We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally. Explain that?

By Cris on 2014 07 26 - 10:28:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Bob McDonld,

I for my part do not “deny chemtrails”. I merely point out how weak the evidence is for them to exist.

Can you pick one of the “lies” that you are referring to, and argue why it is actually a lie? Preferably with evidence?

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:26:02
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.