CLIMATE CHANGE THREAD, get used to it...

I asked my physical chemistry professor sarcastically whether he thinks global warming is real. To my surprise, he told me that the situation is very complicated and the answer isn't clearly black or white. Who says you don't learn anything in school?

0zombie version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvAPzS7z-DU

Trumpy version: https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller/mYNggmi


fuckers

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael...h=278c9d214c9f

Dec 3, 2020,01:13am EST

Biden Climate Plan Risks Putting China And BlackRock Before The American People

Michael ShellenbergerContributor
Energy
I write about energy and the environment.

President-elect Joe Biden’s selection of Brian Deese, a senior official from BlackRock, BLK to head the White House National Economic Council, has drawn wide praise from the people who know him.

“Brian will be the most focused on climate change of any top economic official ever,” said Jason Furman, who led the Council of Economic Advisers for President Barack Obama. “He sees it as an integral part of an overall economic strategy.”

Deese and BlackRock have, more than anyone else, popularized the idea that investors should measure environmental, social, and governance performance, or “ESG.”

And yet BlackRock has for years promoted renewables and fossil fuels over nuclear energy. After the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, BlackRock promoted coal-burning and renewables. “One of our bigger positions in BlackRock World Mining Trust and BGF World Mining Fund BGF is in coal,” noted a BlackRock manager in 2011

And in April, BlackRock raised $5 billion for its Global Energy & Power Infrastructure Fund which invested in businesses connected with “renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro and waste-to-energy) and… natural gas.”

BlackRock, which is known as a “shadow bank,” due to its unique institutional arrangement which allows it to avoid the regulations that banks face, has a long history of hiring former government employees, giving them large salaries, and returning them to public service.

“Links to leaders in both parties have enabled BlackRock to successfully fight designation as a systemically important financial institution,” noted The American Prospect, “keeping its trillions outside the Dodd-Frank regulatory perimeter.”

In a video last year Deese highlighted solar panels and batteries as top investment opportunities. “The utility of the future may look very different in an environment where most of the incumbent source of power is coming from solar and intermittent sources.”

What Deese didn’t mention was that all of that additional storage and other costs associated with renewables drive up electricity prices without creating good jobs. Consider the largest new solar farm in the United States. It will create just six permanent jobs, each earning $43,000 per year. By contrast, an average two-reactor nuclear plant employs 1,200 people.

Much of of the $1 billion that McDonald’s MCD and other companies will invest in the solar farm will be sent to China to purchase solar panels. When those Chinese solar panels arrive in the United States they will simply will be unboxed and spread over 300 - 400 times more land than a natural gas or nuclear plant requires.

While the cost of solar panels has declined, thanks to economies of scale in Chinese factories, the cost of electricity coming from renewables, which require significant amounts of new transmission lines and storage, keeps rising. California saw its electricity rates rise 7 times more than the rest of the U.S. between 2011 and 2019, due principally to the deployment of renewables and enabling equipment.

Under ESG criteria, nuclear energy should rank highest, since nuclear plants require just one-quarter of one percent of the land as industrial solar and wind projects, and produce next to no air and water pollution.

By contrast, solar and wind projects should rank very low on ESG criteria. The large land use requirements of solar and wind projects are triggering grassroots resistance around the world, from Mayan Indians in Mexico to birders in Taiwan to conservationists in India.

A human rights group last June documented 197 allegations of human-rights violations, including killings, by renewable energy developers. In 2019 there were at least 47 attacks, violent and legal, against individuals who raised concerns about human rights violations by the renewable energy industry.

As for public subsidies for energy efficiency, a study by an Obama administration economist found that they cost twice as much as they returned in energy savings. But public spending on efficiency is a win for investors, said Deese.

“Retrofitting is uncomfortable, and people live in structures they don’t own,” acknowledged Deese. But, he added, “The ability to use capital-lite technology like software and data to significantly reduce the energy use of the built environment is a huge investment opportunity.”

Today, the Democrats’ “Build Back Better” mantra echoes talking points used by Deese and BlackRock to pitch “climate resilient” infrastructure. “There’s going to be a big urban defense and global defense bill,” said Deese. “It does create enormous opportunity for how do we make those investments smarter and how do we build back in more resilient ways.”

Infrastructure projects return higher yields than bonds or stocks. Fees are often three times higher than from fixed-income investments. In his promotional video, Deese promoted infrastructure investment not just for renewable energy but also for climate adaptation to avoid “climate refugees in the United States.”

And BlackRock is after investments all over the world. “The opportunity for climate resilient infrastructure globally is quite significant,” said Deese. “At BlackRock we’re working on strategies to define an entire category of climate infrastructure in emerging markets as an investable asset class.”

In the past, the World Bank funded infrastructure like roads, flood control, water purification, and power plants in poor nations, with low-cost loans. Today, shadow banks like BlackRock seek to provide that financing — at a far higher cost to taxpayers.

But the ambitions of Deese and BlackRock are larger than just infrastructure. “When you think about the global macro-trend, people traditionally think about that affecting energy,” he said. “but globally that transition to a low-carbon economy across every part of the economy. Transportation. The ability to control everything in your home from your smart phone to reduce resources consumption.”

In his interview with the New York Times, President-elect Biden acknowledged that his climate ambitions may be reduced to putting more money into R&D to experiment with new battery types and nuclear reactor designs — a far cry from the $2 trillion he promised to spend during the campaign.

Even so, the Biden Administration is also expected to seek new climate regulations and infrastructure, areas where Deese can bring the expertise he gained at BlackRock.

“He is very effective at whatever he sets his mind to,” said Furman, “so he will help the administration creatively execute using all of its levers even if it cannot get legislation passed.”

Follow me on Twitter. Check out my website or some of my other work here.

Michael Shellenberger is the best-selling author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All (Harper Collins), a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,”…

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ccord-n2584368

You Cannot Make This Up: France Violated Its Own Climate Change Agreement?!

Matt Vespa|twitter @mvespa1|Posted: Feb 08, 2021 6:00 AM

You just can’t make this up. It’s not possible. The liberal media and the Democratic Party had a conniption fit when Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. It’s an international commitment toward fighting climate change. Yet, the French did what France has mostly done since the end of the Napoleonic era: lose. A French court recently ruled that the nation had violated its own Paris climate agreement (via CBS News):

Four environmental groups are crying victory after France was found guilty of failing to meet climate change goals it committed to in a historic accord signed in and named after its own capital city. The Administrative Tribunal in Paris ruled Wednesday that France had fallen short of its promise to reduce greenhouse gases under commitments made in the 2015 Paris Agreement, and was "responsible for ecological damage.”

While the court declared the government guilty of inaction, it rejected a claim for damages by the four NGOs that brought the suit, ordering the government to pay just one symbolic euro to them instead. The tribunal also said it would decide within two months whether to recommend any measures for the government to resolve its failure to meet its own commitments.

In January, the court called the proceedings the "first major climate trial in France."

[…]

Oxfam France was joined by Greenpeace France and two French environmental groups in bringing the case against the government. Two years ago, they organized a petition to denounce what they called "climate inaction" by the French state. In just a month they garnered two million signatures, and in March 2019 they filed the lawsuit, alleging failure to act.

In signing the Paris climate accord in December 2015, France committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2030, and to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Last year, France decided to defer that commitment.

As I saw someone on social media post, even the French have been defeated by climate change. But seriously, this is a point that the Biden White House went out of its way to declare that’s why we’ve rejoined this agreement, and now even the French aren't meeting their benchmarks. In fact, that can be said for most of the nations who signed onto this clown show. Meanwhile, the U.S. was already reducing greenhouse gas emissions before and after this agreement was hashed out. We didn’t need a piece of paper from Paris to do this. It’s just a policy to make rich coastal liberals feel good about their purchase of electric cars and that abomination called the Prius

Of course , we the us is the only country that spends money ( a lot) on this BS
Oh and what other country sends billion of tax payers money to the US ( hint NOBODY)

I say everyone should reread my posts on the first page of this thread...




.

I say everyone should reread my posts on the first page of this thread...
. Originally Posted by WTF

this one?


https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1061812020&postcount=7

this one?


https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1061812020&postcount=7 Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Thats his idea of debate

lolling

https://www.ff.org/soros-paid-al-gor...-warming/Soros Paid Al Gore MILLIONS To Push ‘Aggressive US Action’ On Global Warming

January 29, 2017

by Michael Bastasch • Daily Caller



Liberal billionaire George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents.

A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years.

“U.S. Programs Global Warming Grants U.S. Programs became engaged on the global warming issue about four years ago, at George Soros’s suggestion,” reads a leaked OSI memo.

“There has been a budget of $11 million for global warming grants in the U.S. Programs budget for the last several years,” the memo reads. “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, which conducts public education on the climate issue in pursuit of creating political space for aggressive U.S. action in line with what scientists say is necessary to put our nation on a path to reducing its outsize carbon dioxide emissions.”

It’s unclear what year the memo was sent, but the Gore co-founded Alliance for Climate Protection (ACP) was established in 2006 and lasted until it became The Climate Reality Project in July 2011. In 2008, the Alliance launched a $300 million campaign to encourage “Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” The Washington Post reported.

ACP got $10 million from the Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2008, according to the nonprofit’s tax filings. OSI handed over another $5 million to ACP in 2009, according to tax filings. The investigative reporting group ProPublica keeps a database that has OSI tax returns from 2000 to 2013. TheDCNF could not find other years where OSI gave money to ACP.

OSI is primarily a grant-making nonprofit that hands out millions of dollars every year to mostly left-wing causes. Now called the Open Society Foundations, Soros’s nonprofit has handed out more than $13 billion over the last three decades.

OSI didn’t only plan to fund Gore’s climate group to promote global warming policies in the U.S., OSI also planned on giving millions of dollars to spur the “youth climate movement.”

“This budget item also allows for the renewal of U.S. Programs’ long-standing support of the Energy Action Coalition, which is the lead organizer of the youth climate movement in the U.S., the memo reads.

“We are also including a placeholder for an additional $2 million, pending discussion about and development of OSI’s global warming agenda,” the memo reads. “There is a memo from Nancy Youman in the strategic plans binder that recommends pathways forward for OSI on the climate issue – in the U.S., as well as in other parts of the Open Society Network.”

https://www.thegwpf.com/poor-timing-...nic-poppycock/

The Climate Record

Poor Timing For Al Gore’s Climate Panic Poppycock

Date: 18/06/19, Judith Sloan, The Australian

While Al Gore was in Queensland, he was offering up some more whoppers – days after Labor lost the ‘climate election’.



In politics, timing is crucial. And thus it was with the unfortunately timed participation of former US vice-president Al Gore in the Queensland government-sponsored Climate Week earlier this month.

According to the blurb, “Climate Week QLD 2019 will showcase how the state is transitioning to a low-carbon, clean-growth economy and building a community of action to address climate change.”

Occurring as it did after the unexpected victory of the Morrison government, Gore’s pronouncements during the week about the perils of climate change — let’s face it, he easily wins the gold medal in the boy-who-cried-wolf category when it comes to climate-induced apocalypses — were particularly jarring.

As for that photographed pose of Gore and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad cuddling up to each other, it’s probably best not to comment.
An Instagram post by Jackie Trad with Al Gore.An Instagram post by Jackie Trad with Al Gore.

It would have been fun to be a fly on the wall when the planning for this gala week occurred. The expectation would have been that Labor would win the federal election, with the clear message that the public was demanding “real action on climate change” — so the motto goes. Reference would have been made to Bill Shorten’s plans to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 and for 50 per cent of electricity to be generated by renewable energy sources.

The Queensland government would endorse these targets while arguing for more ambitious ones. Reference would be made to the Palaszczuk government’s pledge for the state to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Without doubt, Big Al would be supportive.

Of course, the Great Barrier Reef would need to be a central part of the story. And the potential for the final rejection of the Adani project would complete a very satisfactory week of positive, vote-winning news items for the Queensland government.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone would give Gore the time of day. After all, he is not a trained scientist; he appears to make a living from concocting scary climate stories.

While he was in Queensland, he was offering up some more whoppers. Maybe he thought the appearance fee he received — estimated to be $320,000, paid for by Queensland taxpayers — necessitated the delivery of some sensational unsubstantiated claims.

To tell an audience that the choice is between Adani and the Great Barrier Reef is puerile and misinformed. To suggest that India is now sourcing 60 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources is just plain wrong — out by a factor of four to five. And these statements come on top of the many falsehoods Gore has peddled in the past. These include:

• In 2006, he claimed that the planet would reach a “point of no return” in 10 years.

• In the same year, he predicted that sea levels would rise by 20 feet (just over 6m) “in the near future”.

• In 2008, he claimed that the north polar cap would be completely ice-free within five years.

• In 2011, he claimed that polar bears would soon become close to extinction (their number has been rising).

Presumably, these faulty predictions were known to the organising committee as well as to the key politicians — Annastacia Palaszczuk, Trad and Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch — who supported the shindig. But Gore is a name and his discredited propaganda doesn’t prevent him from being a regular invitee to the annual conferences of the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Recall that the last one was held in Poland during a particularly cold weather snap.

So now that Gore has left town on his private jet — no doubt some sort of carbon offsets were arranged — state governments and the renewable energy industry, in particular, are in the process of reconsidering their approach to climate change and their interaction with the federal Coalition government.

There is no doubt that most of the renewable energy players were devastated by the May 18 election result. Their hopes, in descending order, were: Labor victory; defeat of Energy Minister Angus Taylor in his seat of Hume in NSW; and the appointment of anyone but Taylor as the next energy minister.

These hopes have been completely dashed.

A vitriolic, misleading and well-funded campaign was waged against Taylor, including the dredging up of snippets from his successful commercial past that were intended to cast doubt on his integrity — indeed, suitability for high office.

In the end, the self-serving, mean-spirited attempt to damage Taylor completely backfired and he was returned to parliament with a swing towards him. Not only does he remain the Energy Minister but his areas of responsibilities have been expanded to include emissions reduction.

One of the problems for the mendicant renewable energy players in dealing with Taylor is that he is just too smart and commercially experienced. He understands the industry like the back of his hand and is happy to query the sometimes faulty advice he receives from the bureaucracy.

He knows that claims that renewable energy-sourced electricity is now cheaper than coal-fired electricity are not correct and that Australia’s electricity generation mix will involve a range of technologies in the future.

He is committed to increasing supply and promoting greater competition to drive down prices. These measures are in line with the recommendations of the report of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission on retail electricity prices.

The renewable energy players will be forced to stand on their own two feet — for a change — and will need to adjust to the new reliability standards that come into play on July 1. Penalties are being imposed on far-flung installations and contributions are expected to fund the additional grid infrastructure required to hook up new wind and solar farms.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/event...ng-controversy


Climategate / Climatic Research Unit Email Hacking Controversy

Event
Status: submission Year: 2009
Origin: Unknown

Added 4 years ago by rikameme.
Updated about a year ago by Z..

Overview

Climategate is an environmental-academic scandal over the issue of global climate change which arose after thousands of email correspondences and other documents pertaining to research of climate changes over the course of 13 years were stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU)'s servers by an unknown group of hackers in November 2009. Upon the online distribution of the private research documents, some climate-change skeptics interpreted the leaked emails as supporting evidence of alleged data manipulation by politically motivated scientists, as well as their assertion that global warming is a scientific conspiracy. However, numerous investigations into the scandal ultimately found these accusations to be unfounded and the CRU scientists were cleared of any wrongdoing.

Background

The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) is an academic research program of the University of East Anglia,[1] a British public research university located in Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom. On November 17th, 2009, only a few weeks before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Norway, a large volume of archived emails and other documents were stolen from a compromised server and published online, prompting a widespread debate in the news media over the validity of scientific research in the areas of global warming and climate changes.

Coinage

While the term “Climategate”, bearing similarity to numerous other scandals named with the “-gate” suffix, was first conceived by a commenter named “Bulldust” responding to the subject’s article on popular skeptic blog Watts Up With That[4], the phrase was popularized by and widely-accredited to James Delingpole, a blogger and writer known for anti-Environmentalist works such as Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children’s Future[6] and The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism[7], the former named for a joke disparaging environmentalists as “green on the outside, red on the inside” – implying a connection between popular environmentalism and socialist ideology.

Notable Developments

E-mail Leaks

The emails, seemingly stolen over the course of several weeks, were taken likely until November 12th, 2009, as this is the most recent date at which the leaked emails had been sent. The data, 160 megabytes in size[27], was uploaded onto a Russian server, and from there was linked to on a skeptical blog named The Air Vent, using a computer located in Saudi Arabia[23].

Concerns of Scientific Malfeasance

The emails, according to skeptics and those concerned about the scandal, revealed numerous potential problems in the scientific consensus on climate change. The first among those concerns, which received the most media coverage, was that CRU scientists manipulated data or the presentation of data to cloak scientific evidence contrary to the popular consensus that anthropogenic – or “man-made” climate change, was real. The following is an annotated list of quotes deemed most concerning by several media outlets:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

The phrase “hide the decline” was taken by many skeptics to mean that CRU’s scientists obscured data to mask unfavorable temperature data, while “Mike’s Nature trick” was taken to mean that the scientists used an evidently popular means of deception to manipulate climate data. However, it was found upon investigation that these phrases had meanings different than was originally interpreted by the skeptics. Measurements of tree ring growth – taken from samples of trees at high latitudes – is considered a historically accurate means of estimating temperature averages dating back to 1880. However, tree rings measured from high-latitude locations since the 1960s reveal temperature estimations different than the actual temperature records then taken. Tree rings, thus, have useful but limited value when estimating historical temperatures. This phenomena has been discussed heavily within peer-reviewed scientific research[8]. Mike’s Nature Trick, coined from a presentational technique previously used in the scientific journal Nature, refers to the technique of plotting historical temperature estimations along with, once possible, real recorded temperatures. The trick refers not to an act of deceit, but a means to lend context to temperature reconstructions – normally regarded as a more honest means to present scientific data. The “decline” referred to declines in tree ring growth, not declines in temperature.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.

Then-CRU scientist Kevin Trenberth wrote in an email what seemed, to readers, an admission of deceit in scientific reporting on climate warming. The context of the email, however, was largely missed. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere reflect heat radiating from the earth’s surface back onto the planet, effectively increasing the amount of energy entering the lower layers of the atmosphere and striking the surface of the planet. The amount of energy reflected, when the amounts of greenhouse gasses added to the atmosphere are known, is calculable[10]. However, where much of the energy reflected back onto the earth’s surface has gone remains a scientific mystery, as measured increases in the energy content over land, in the polar ice caps and so on does not account for all of the added energy. Trenberth, in this email, laments the lack of scientific knowledge on where this energy is going, but suggests elsewhere that it is likely entering the deeper waters of the oceans, as energy flows through them are currently not monitored nor well-understood[9].

The potency of concerns over scientific malfeasance were amplified by two key facts of the time. The first was that the email were leaked on the eve of th 2009 Copenhagen Climate Negotiation Meetings, a major United Nations Event in which leaders of 192 of the world’s countries convened to discuss a potential agreement over climate change and the responsibilities of different nations to combat it[23]. The second was that data from the University of East Anglia were components of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s research base. The IPCC is an organization established by the World Meteorological Association and the United Nations Environmental Programme[24]. The IPCC synthesizes scientific research on climate and provides summary reports for policymakers across the world.

Concerns of Scientific Misbehavior

The remainder of the concerns are best understood in the context of the sociology of science. How scientists expect themselves and fellow scientists to behave were famously described by Robert K. Merton, who received the National Medal of Science from former United States President Bill Clinton[26]. The scientific process, as written by Merton, consists of four basic principles: Universalism – that scientific work is defined by its substance and not by the scientist responsible, Communism – that the fruits of scientific work belonged to all (Note: Merton very explicitly differentiated this “Communism” from Marxism), Disinterestedness – that scientists should not be motivated by outside interests and biases when performing scientific work – and Organized Skepticism – that every claim should be equally scrutinized and tested[25] by fellow scientists.

Many of us in the paleo field get requests from skeptics (mainly a guy called Steve McIntyre in Canada) asking us for series. Mike and I are not sending anything, partly because we don’t have some of the series he wants, also partly as we’ve got the data through contacts like you, but mostly because he’ll distort and misuse them. Despite this, Mike and I would like to make as many of the series we’ve used in the [Reviews of Geophysics] plots available from the CRU web page.

~

My personal opinion is that both FOI requests [for data related to a 2008 paper and for correspondence dating back to 2006] are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. … McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues.

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions -- one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA […] became very supportive.

A component of the scandal, albeit one with a history long preceding Climategate itself, was the matter of Freedom of Information Act requests. As a public institution, the University of East Anglia had a legal obligation to fulfill Freedom of Information Act requests (FOI requests), in which any information that requested of the University had to be fulfilled, within legal limits. CRU scientists began to feel that the law was being abused, and that skeptics were using their blogs to coordinate request brigading to waste as much of the research program’s time as possible. CRU scientists lamented this phenomena, joking or discussing the prospect of obstructing the process along the way. Ensuing investigations found that actual instances of this happening were overblown and that, while CRU could have been more open with regard to FOI requests, that no wrongdoing had been committed as the emails had suggested. While skeptics did accurately observe that the University, even after claiming it made an effort to open as much data to public access as it could, did not publically release all of the climate data. CRU defended itself, noting that 95% of its data had been made publically available and that the remaining data came from other institutions, and that they themselves did not hold the legal title to publically distribute the data [28].

Next time I see Pat Michaels [A fellow of the conservative Cato Institute] at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

In an odd way [the death of long-time climate change skeptic John Daly] is cheering news!

The resulting investigations noted, the seemingly unprofessional attitudes contained within these emails had no bearing on if scientific misconduct had transpired. Furthermore, the history behind the emails were more complicated than could be captured not only out of their original context, but without an understanding of how the Climatic Research Unit was operating. Finally, a key lesson noted in many of the reports, as well as in opinion pieces published by scientific journals and institutions, was that scientists are human like anybody else, and how they privately conduct themselves are an irrelevant when considering their professional conduct.

Despite the fact that CRU’s scientists were found to have upheld professional standards, the accusations not relating to the manipulation of data or the presentation of data did have decided merit. For the various reasons previously described, CRU scientists did, in some of the hacked emails, display behavior arguably violating the social norms of science. For example, the rejection of skeptical work – although the scientists felt they were justified – violated the principles of Universalism. The handling of FOI requests, although not motivated for reasons purely scientific, violated the norm of Communism. The emotional or aggressive comments presented within the emails depicted a culture not entirely disinterested from the subject that the scientists were studying, violating Merton’s third norm. Finally, from the perspective of a skeptic, the CRU scientists showed no interest in greeting their claims with symettrical skepticism. However, the skeptics were guilty of the same offense, from the perspectives of CRU’s scientists.

The actual merits of these norms – as well as whether or not they were violated – cast aside, it can be said that sufficient room exists to debate whether or not CRU’s scientists acted as should be expected of scientists. For the skeptical community, Climategate leaves an enduring bruise on their perception of the scientific community affirming anthropogenic climate change.

Aftermath

Following the spread of the story throughout the blogosphere, several media outlets picked up the story such as The Telegraph[11] and Fox News[3]. James Inhofe, long-standing environmental skeptic and, as of 2015, the head of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, announced that he would order an inquiry into Climategate so that he could expose what he believed was a conspiracy to control global politics using the climate change “hoax”[22] . In the process, several CRU scientists reported receiving death threats, which were then investigated by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation[5].

More slowly, the debacle lead several institutions to investigate the actions and behavior of the CRU scientists, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency[12], the United States Department of Commerce[13], the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee[14], The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[15], The National Science Foundation[16], Penn State University[17], Fact-checking websites such as Factcheck.org[18] and Politifact.com[19] and several other independent investigations[20]. All found no evidence of scientific wrong-doing by the CRU scientists and declared the scandal concerns unfounded.

In response, the editorial staff of the peer-reviewed Nature journal wrote:

Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant[21].

The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote:

The stolen emails were published just two weeks ahead of a major U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen. According to a British newspaper, they were originally hacked in October. Whoever published these emails likely wanted to spread misinformation about climate science to try to undermine the conference. The University of East Anglia, which housed the emails, has launched an investigation to determine who stole them.

Scientists are as human as anybody else.

Some of the other emails simply show scientists expressing frustration and--in one email--even talking (not seriously, we hope) about beating up someone who had, in his view, made an unfair, public attack on his colleague. Such chatter is not surprising to find in private emails. But they have generated widespread attention in part because they don't mesh with the public's image of scientists.

Scientists have a wide array of dispositions. But regardless of how scientists act, they should all advance their arguments through evidence and valid scientific interpretations. The process of science is what is important. Over time, rigorous analyses, vetted through expert peer review, tend to weed out poorly substantiated arguments. And only the best explanations for how the world works--such as the obvious evidence that excess carbon dioxide emissions are driving global warming--survive the process[2].

https://www.westernjournal.com/crimi...aign=topweekly
.
Criminal Conspiracy Probe Launched After Greta Thunberg Accidentally Posts Her Marching Orders
By Jared Harris
Published February 4, 2021 at 3:07pm

Environmental extremist Greta Thunberg sparked a criminal conspiracy probe after sharing the wrong document with her nearly 5 million Twitter followers.

The investigation began after the 18-year-old Thunberg accidentally tweeted apparent orders advising her on what to post and say about sensitive world issues.

The Wednesday post was quickly deleted, but not before being saved and shared by multiple accounts. Pictures of Thunberg’s document reveal one of the suggested posts included a manufactured response in support of Indian farmers violently protesting their government.

Screenshots of the tweet show the document was accidentally posted by Thunberg as she offered her supporters a “toolkit” to help support the protests.

BREAKING UPDATE: Greta Thunberg is now facing a criminal conspiracy investigation in India over deleted farmers protest tweets (New York Post)

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 4, 2021

After deleting her post, Thunberg tried to spin the marching orders as an “outdated” document in a follow-up.
https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/st...94884615340037

Greta Thunberg@GretaThunberg

We stand in solidarity with the #FarmersProtest in India.


India cuts internet around New Delhi as protesting farmers clash with police

Internet access remained blocked Monday in several districts of a state bordering India's capital following violent weekend clashes between police and farmers protesting controversial agricultural...
cnn.com

2:04 PM · Feb 2, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

105.5K Retweets 13.8K Quote Tweets 321.8K Likes

Greta Thunberg@GretaThunberg
·
Feb 3
Replying to @GretaThunberg

Here’s an updated toolkit by people on the ground in India if you want to help. (They removed their previous document as it was outdated.) #StandWithFarmers #FarmersProtest https://cryptpad.fr/pad/#/2/pad/vi

Twitter users didn’t appear to buy it, and many called her out for the previous revelation.

According to India’s NDTV, Delhi police officials have confirmed the probe is not focused on Thunberg specifically but rather the creators of the document she shared.

It was labeled a suspected “overseas conspiracy” by law enforcement, and Indian authorities appear to be serious about getting to the bottom of the manufactured support for the anti-government protests.

“Delhi Police has taken cognizance of a toolkit document found on a social media handle that predates and indicates a copycat execution of a conspiracy behind the January 26 violence,” Delhi Police Special Commissioner Praveer Ranjan said, according to NDTV.

“The call was to wage economic, social, cultural and regional war against India,” he added.

One of the cases being built involves “sedition,” according to Ranjan, who believes the issue was used to push conflict between religious and ethnic groups in India.

Despite the seriousness with which authorities are treating this case, Thunberg does not seem to be bothered by the growing international criminal investigation.

Thursday, the young activist doubled down on her support of the farmers and their “peaceful protest.”

While Indian authorities seem confident in their growing investigation, it’s unclear whether the probe will eventually involve Thunberg.

For the Swedish activist, who has supported other actions in countries across the world, her mistake might spark other nations to investigate similar protests within their own borders.

While Thunberg seems to have only shared the suspicious orders, she could find herself having to explain how deeply she was involved with it.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Jared has written more than 200 articles and assigned hundreds more since he joined The Western Journal in February 2017. He was an infantryman in the Arkansas and Georgia National Guard and is a husband, dad and aspiring farmer.

The Dimming, Full Length Climate Engineering Documentary ( Geoengineering Watch )


1:56:50

Are Miami and New York city under water

Are Miami and New York city under water Originally Posted by rexdutchman

thats hard to say...