Klimaschwindel enttarnt! Politisches Desaster!

@greykilla
http://www.greenpeace.at/4023.html (Archiv-Version vom 09.04.2011)

speziell für dich - -

@greykilla

greykilla schrieb:klimawandel in unserem gesamten sonnensystem statt? welchen faktor der sich auf das klima auswirkt, haben all die planeten in unserem SONNEnsystem gemeinsam?

Interessant, da ich mich für Astronomie interessiere, würde ich gern etwas über den Kliawandel auf Venus, Mars, jupiter, Saturn, Uranus und Neptun und vor allem deren Monden erfahren, gibt es da eine zusammenfassende Publikation ?
Soviel ich weiss, liegt doch unser Wissen über die Atmosphären dieser Planeten und deren Monden noch in den Anfängen.
Oder irre ich mich da ?

@greykilla
hier noch etwas für dich - sich mit der realität zu befassen hilft zu erkennen -
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu:de:official&hs=NJR&q=argentinien+urwald&start=10&sa=N

@eckhart
lass dich überraschen - :D

schon bald also in paar hundert jahren sprießen dort die tulpen und narzissen - - :D

@kiki1962
Ach halt doch die Klappe,dumme Ökotussi,Baumschmuserin depperte,langhaarige Umweltspinner,schneidet euch erstmal die Haare

@eckhart
Ob Greykilla auch ein paar Fachartikel über die Marsflora am Start hat?!

@kiki1962
dein link vom argentinischen regenwald war ziemlich unnötig. ich bin nicht für die zerstörung des regenwaldes....oder machst du hier nur werbung für greenpeace?!?

@eckhart
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.


Quelle: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



Global Warming Detected on Triton

There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless...

The Earth is not alone in suffering global warming. According to observations made by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and several ground-based instruments, temperatures on Neptune's largest moon have increased dramatically since the Voyager space probe swung by in 1989. So much so, in fact, that Triton's surface of frozen nitrogen is turning into gas, making its thin atmosphere denser by the day.

"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

Elliot and colleagues from the Lowell Observatory and Williams College report their findings in the June 25 issue of the journal Nature. Triton's 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about -392 to -389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of some 22 degrees Fahrenheit in just nine years.

There are two possible explanations for the moon's warmer weather. One is that the frost pattern on Triton's surface may have changed over the years, absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat.

About the same size and density as Pluto, Triton is thirty times as far from the sun as the Earth. It is known to be extremely cold and gusty, with wind speeds close to the speed of sound. Its atmosphere is composed mostly of molecular nitrogen, and its terrain varies between icy regions and bare spots. Quips Elliot: "When you're so cold, global warming is a welcome trend."

Quelle: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml


Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

Pluto's atmospheric pressure has tripled over the past 14 years, indicating a stark temperature rise, the researchers said. The change is likely a seasonal event, much as seasons on Earth change as the hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun during the planet's annual orbit.

They suspect the average surface temperature increased about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius.

Pluto remains a mysterious world whose secrets are no so easily explained, however. The warming could be fueled by some sort of eruptive activity on the small planet, one astronomer speculated.

The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees.

Though Pluto was closest to the Sun in 1989, a warming trend 13 years later does not surprise David Tholen, a University of Hawaii astronomer involved in the discovery.

"It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon," Tholen said. "This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years."

Stellar observations

The conclusion is based on data gathered during a chance passage of Pluto in front of a distant star as seen from Earth. Such events, called occultations, are rare, but two of them occurred this summer.

In the occultations, which are like eclipses, astronomers examined starlight as it passed through Pluto's tenuous atmosphere just before the planet blotted out the light.

The first occultation, in July, yielded limited data because of terrestrial cloud cover above key telescopes. Marc Buie, an astronomer at Lowell Observatory, scrambled to observe the event from northern Chile using portable 14-inch (0.35-meter) telescope. Afterward, Buie said he was baffled by what seemed to be global cooling of Pluto's atmosphere punctuated by some surface warming.

Then on Aug. 20, Pluto passed in front of a different star. The latter event provided much better data captured by eight large telescopes and seems to clarify and mostly reverse the earlier findings.

The results were compared to studies from 1988, the last time Pluto was observed eclipsing a star.

James Elliot of MIT led a team of astronomers who coordinated their observations and presented the findings today at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's (AAS) Division for Planetary Sciences in Birmingham, Ala.

Elliot said the Aug. 20 occultation was the first that allowed such a deep probing of the composition, pressure and the always-frigid temperature of Pluto's atmosphere, which ranges from -391 to -274 degrees Fahrenheit (-235 to -170 degrees Celsius).

Volcanoes on Pluto?

Elliot hinted at the possibility of another factor fueling Pluto's warming trend.

He compared Pluto to Triton, a moon of Neptune. Both have atmospheres made mostly of nitrogen. In 1997, Triton occulted a star and astronomers found that its atmosphere had warmed since the last observations were made in 1989 during the Voyager mission. Back then, Voyager found dark material rising above Triton, indicating possible eruptive activity.

"There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto's atmosphere are much more severe," Elliot said. "The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto's changes are not subtle."

There is no firm evidence that Pluto is volcanically active, but neither is there evidence to rule out that possibility. Even the Hubble Space Telescope can barely make out Pluto's surface.

Elliot added that the process affecting Pluto's temperature is complex. "We just don't know what is causing these effects," he said.

Let's go there

Elliot and others believe this poor understanding of our solar system's tiniest planet is grounds for sending a robot to investigate. Pluto is the only planet not visited by a spacecraft.

NASA has shelved a mission that would explore Pluto and the Kuiper Belt of frozen objects in which it resides.

Congress, however, appears to view the mission as worthy of some funds. A House budget panel this week followed the lead of the Senate in approving $105 million for the mission. If final approval comes, NASA would be compelled to undertake the project.

Interestingly, while Pluto's atmosphere has been growing warmer in recent years, astronomers have argued that a Pluto mission must launch by 2006, lest it miss the opportunity to study Pluto's atmosphere before it completely freezes out for the winter.

Tentative mission plans call for a robotic probe that would not reach Pluto for several years, making a flyby sometime prior to 2020 prior to investigating other objects deeper in the solar system.

Meanwhile, astronomers are looking forward to a space telescope called SOFIA, slated to begin operations in 2004. SOFIA will carry an instrument designed specifically to observe occultations and is expected to be employed when Pluto passes in front of other stars in coming years.

The Pluto observations this summer were funded by NASA, the Research Corporation and the National Science Foundation. Observations were made using the telescopes at the Mauna Kea Observatory, Haleakala, Lick Observatory, Lowell Observatory and the Palomar Observatory.

Quelle: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html




New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change

A storm is brewing half a billion miles away and in a rare event, astronomers get to watch it closely.

Jupiter is growing a new red spot and the Hubble Space Telescope is photographing the scene. Backyard astronomers have been following the action, too.

"Red Spot Jr." as it is being called, formed after three white oval-shaped storms-two of which were at least 90 years old-merged between 1998 and 2000.

A similar merger took place centuries ago and formed the bigger and legendary Great Red Spot, a storm twice as big as Earth and almost 300 years old.

Close look

Close inspections of Red Spot Jr., in Hubble images released today, reveal that similar to the Great Red Spot, the more recently developed storm rises above the top of the main cloud deck on Jupiter.
Related Galleries

Jupiter's Moons

Solar System Portraits

Saturn

Little is known about how storms form on the giant planet. They are often described as behaving similar to hurricanes on Earth. Some astronomers believe that the spots dredge up material deep below Jupiter's clouds and lift it to where the Sun's ultraviolet light chemically alters it to give it a red hue.

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

The study was led jointly by Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of University of California, Berkeley.

"The storm is growing in altitude," de Pater said. "Before when they were just ovals they didn't stick out above the clouds. Now they are rising."

This growth signals a temperature increase in that region, she said.

Marking change

The global change cycle began when the last of the white oval-shaped storms formed south of the Great Red Spot in 1939. As the storms started to merge between 1998 and 2000, the mixing of heat began to slow down at that latitude and has continued slowing ever since.

The movement of heat from the equator to Jupiter's south pole is expected to stop at 34 degrees southern latitude, where Red Spot Jr. is forming.

This will create a big wall and stop the mixing of heat and airflow, the thinking goes. As a result, areas around the equator become warmer, while the poles can start to cool down.

Quelle: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

eckhart schrieb:Interessant, da ich mich für Astronomie interessiere,

dann werf doch einen blick auf daten der nasa...

Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds


Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon.

While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species.

Wobbly Mars

Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, recently linked the attenuation of ice caps on Mars to fluctuations in the sun's output. Abdussamatov also blamed solar fluctuations for Earth’s current global warming trend. His initial comments were published online by National Geographic News.

“Man-made greenhouse warming has [made a] small contribution [to] the warming on Earth in recent years, but [it] cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov told LiveScience in an email interview last week. “The considerable heating and cooling on the Earth and on Mars always will be practically parallel."

But Abdussamatov’s critics say the Red Planet’s recent thawing is more likely due to natural variations in the planet’s orbit and tilt. On Earth, these wobbles, known as Milankovitch cycles, are thought to contribute to the onset and disappearance ice ages.

“It’s believed that what drives climate change on Mars are orbital variations,” said Jeffrey Plaut, a project scientist for NASA’s Mars Odyssey mission. “The Earth also goes through orbital variations similar to that of Mars.”

As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.

“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”

In 2005, Long’s team published a study in the journal Science showing that Earth experienced a period of “solar global dimming” from 1960 to 1990, during which time solar radiation hitting our planet’s surface decreased. Then from the mid-1990’s onward, the trend reversed and Earth experienced a “solar brightening.”

These changes were not likely driven by fluctuations in the output of the Sun, Long explained, but rather increases in atmospheric clouds or aerosols that reflected solar radiation back into space.

Other warming worlds

Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:

“Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.

“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”

In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.

The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.

Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

Sun does vary

The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.

“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.

“Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”

The Maunder Minimum

This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.

Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.

“The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.

Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.

This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.


Quelle: http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html


Wer immer noch glaubt CO2 wäre für einen Klimawandel verantwortlich der verschließt nur noch die Augen.

-astronomische Daten beweisen dass unser gesamtes Sonnensystem sich verändert

-IPCC Daten werden verfälscht wie Klimagate gezeigt hat

-IPCC wurde gegründet um die Klimakatastrophe zu verkünden




hier noch ein interessanter artikel:


How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
...

Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of the first three Reports, signaled the objectives were political and not scientific. He said, “Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” The IPCC has done this with ruthless efficiency while pretending what they are doing is science not politics. Houghton gave an example of a disastrous statement when he announced “...the impacts of global warming are like a weapon of mass destruction”, which is followed by the claim that it kills more people than terrorism. Trouble is more people die of cold each year than heat. Also, notice the word “impact” because that, not science, dominates the work of the IPCC. Two thirds of the people involved in the IPCC (1900 of 2500) are not climate experts and study what might happen, not will happen. So the entire process was established to achieve the goal of announcing (potential) disasters.

Bert Bolin, who Al Gore credits with creating the IPCC, was Houghton’s co-chair. Bolin had a history of involvement in the politics of the environment. Both he and Houghton signed the 1992 warning to humanity essentially blaming the developed nations. It was more of the Club of Rome approach with no clear measures or evidence, simply a list of possible disasters if we didn’t do things their way. (link)


Science creates theories based on assumptions that are then tested by other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the IPCC made sure the focus was on human caused change and CO2 as the particular culprit. They’d already biased the research by using a very narrow definition of climate change in article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty produced at that infamous “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992. Climate Change was defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods. This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the research. The problem is you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.

Properly, a scientific definition would put natural climate variability first, but at no point does the UN mandate require an advance of climate science. The definition used by UNFCCC predetermined how the research and results would be political and pre-determined the result. It made discovering a clear ‘human signal’ mandatory, but meaningless. As noted it thwarted the scientific method.

Other parts of their mandate illustrate the political nature of the entire exercise. Its own principles require the IPCC “shall concentrate its activities on the tasks allotted to it by the relevant WMO Executive Council and UNEP Governing Council resolutions and decisions as well as on actions in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” (From Principles Governing IPCC work, approved at the 14th Session, Vienna 1-3 October 1998 and amended at the 21st Session, Vienna 6-7 November, 2003.) The role is also to “...assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy…” The process has been anything but “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent” as we will see later. However, the cynicism of the last sentence was exposed when they made the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) the most important part of IPCC reports and these have been anything but ‘neutral’ as we will see.

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively. Of the 600 in WGI, 308 were independent reviewers, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as ‘proof’ of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

The manipulation and politics didn’t stop there. The Technical Reports of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the SPM. A few scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by governments and a second draft is produced. Then a final report is hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It is claimed the scientists set the final summary content, but in reality governments set the form. The SPM is then released at least three months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the technical or science report see the Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures. “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) or the Overview Chapter.” Yes, you read that correctly. This is like an Executive writing a summary and then having employees write a report that agrees with the summary.

When you accept an hypothesis before it is proven you step on the treadmill of maintaining the hypothesis. This leads to selective and even biased research and publications. As evidence appears to show problems with the hypothesis the natural tendency is to become more virulent in defending the increasingly indefensible. This tendency is underlined by John Maynard Keynes sardonic question; “If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion. What do you do, Sir.” The IPCC and those who were chosen or chose to participate were locked in to a conclusion by the rules, regulations and procedures carefully crafted by Maurice Strong. These predetermined the outcome - a situation in complete contradiction to the objectives and methods of science.

As evidence grew that the hypothesis was scientifically unsupportable adherents began defending rather than accepting and adjusting. The trail they made is marked by the search for a clear human signal, identified in modern parlance as ‘smoking guns.’ They also became trapped in what Russian writer and philosopher Leo Tolstoi identified many years ago, namely, “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

...

Quelle: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2840

hier noch mehr informationen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfxyq0v_c4

Klimagate wird in Kopenhagen von Saudi-Arabien angesprochen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jvR05e1KYY

hier etwas aktuelles von lord monckton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto (Video: Lord Monckton: Global Warming big scientific fad)

Jau...lass uns wild drauflospolemisieren,scheiss auf die Inhalte,und die lästige Frage woher die Inhalte die du da wie am VW-Fliessband postest überhaupt herkommen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHEzc94mZo

extra 3 Tours - Klimawandel

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

Zur Abwechslung ein bisschen Ernsthaftigkeit

Klimawandel in Deutschland - ein Landwirt erzählt

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

um weiter Comic zu machen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YggT44V6Y7w

@greykilla
mal ne blöde frage

wenn man sieht wie die alle (regierungen, industrie etc) auf climagate reagieren dann frage ich mich doch von wem wurden dann die "klimalüge" in auftrag gegeben?

diejenigen die jetzt sagen: " ätschebätsch ist ja alles nur schwindel!" waren für die lüge ja wohl nicht verantwortlich oder?

und wo sind eigentlich die leute die sonst immer behaupten die emails wären von den ölfirmen gefälscht worden

wo sind die cui bono!? schreier?

@robert-capa
Hier,hab mich schon zu Wort gemeldet.Das Klimagategeschrei kommt ausschliesslich aus ner Ecke aus der ohnehin permanent zu jedem Thema Geschrei und nichts als Geschrei kommt...hauptsächlich deshalb weil es aus lauten Megaphonen tönt,Ultrarechte,Erzevangelikale,Wissenschaftshasser,Chemtrailioten und Haarpphantasten,Wirtschaftslobbyisten und Neoliberale denen es nie zuviel Wirtschaft aber dafür zuviel umweltrechtliche Schranken gibt geben sich ein geeintes Stelldichein...und schreien und pöbeln und brüllen nieder
...und posten in Serie Youtubemüll von Lord Monckton dem gnadenlosen Wirtschaftsthatcheristen dem es zu verdanken ist das die Briten mit privatisierten Staatsbahnen rumgondeln deren Sicherheitsstandard niedriger ist als zu Beginn der Eisenbahn

robert-capa schrieb:wenn man sieht wie die alle (regierungen, industrie etc) auf climagate reagieren dann frage ich mich doch von wem wurden dann die "klimalüge" in auftrag gegeben?

@robert-capa
die klimalüge wurde nicht von regierungen in auftrag gegeben....regierungen werden von anderen "organisationen" dazu gebracht diese lüge zu erzählen.

einer der figuren die sehr stark dahinter stecken ist maurice strong. maurice strong benutzt die IPCC um "politische" ziele zu erreichen. er arbeitet für rockefeller. hört sich nach vt an... kann man aber alles in mainstreamquellen nachlesen!

Maurice Strong Interview (BBC, 1972)

Externer Inhalt
Durch das Abspielen werden Daten an Youtube übermittelt und ggf. Cookies gesetzt.

das sind die typen die meinen dass wir viel zu viele menschen auf der erde haben.... mit den geplanten kopenhagen verträgen wird der preis für lebensmittel um einiges teurer werden und in den armen ländern werden wieder mal millionen sterben. ziel=viele menschen loswerden=bessere kontrolle und nebenbei noch gutes geld am atem der menschen verdienen.

in deutschland findet klimagate leider immer noch keine beachtung....aber menschen sind ja nicht blöd und werden sehr bald merken dass sie verarscht werden...es wäre besser wenn die medien bis dahin au

@greykilla
also du bist davon überzeugt das alle wissentschaftler gekauft sind und das der treibhauseffekt nicht existiert richtig?

wenn du mit "alle wissenschaftler" die paar wissenschaftler meinst die in der ipcc tatsächlich wissenschaftler sind dann muss ich sagen: ich glaube dass diese wissenschaftler nicht die wahrheit sagen... wusstest du dass über 30000 wissenschaftler eine klage gegen al gore erhoben haben wegen seiner unwahreiten im bezug zur "erderwärmung"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

@robert-capa
bist du etwa ein "klimawantologe"?

Also sind auch Greenpeace,friends of earth,Robin Wood,BUND,Nabu,Earth first,Sea Sheperd,BBU,Medicines sans frontiers,Ärzte für die Verhinderung eines Atomkriegs,BBU,Aatac,Adfc alle nur gekauft oder Tarnorganisationen??
Übrigens bin ich auch der Meinung das wir zuviele Menschen auf dem Planeten haben...vor allem zuviele die zuviel verbrauchen,mehr als die überwiegende Mehrheit die nur ein Minimum dessen verbraucht was wir verschwenden

@greykilla
Ich find den Namen Maurice Strong immer nur Faschoseiten die mit fetten Megaphonen rumwirtschaften...du wirst immer lächerlicher

@greykilla
ich hab mich nie besonders mit dem treibhauseffekt beschäftigt das erste mal hörte ich davon mitte der neunziger


fakt ist

das klima ist unfassbar kompliziert das klima und das gleichgewicht verschiedener gase hat sich über einen sehr langen zeitraum gebildet und wenn man bedenkt was z.b ein vulkanausbruch oder das ausbleiben von flugverkehr (nach 9/11) für folgen hat komme ich persönlich zu dem schluß das die menschheit lieber nicht mit unsererm klima herumspielen sollte

man darf ja auch nicht vergessen dass der co2 ausstoß nicht die einzige manipulation der erde durch den menschen ist

angefangen bei der abholzung des regenwaldes oder dem ozonloch bis hin zur globalen verdunkelung

wir haben diesem planeten schon ziemlich viel zugemutet und nur weil einige wissentschaftlich modelle behaupten wir könnten so weiter mache wie bisher vertraue ich lieber meinem gesunden menschenverstand und sage:"was kann es schaden etwas weniger co2 in die luf zu blasen?"

aber im endeffekt kommt bei der konferenz sowieso nichts heraus